My problem with optimization

[Erloas]

So after thinking about optimization and how it compares to other game systems, I think I've mostly found out what I don't like about it.

I think a character is as much defined by its shortcomings as it is by its strengths.

I can't stand when someone takes a PC game and mods out the parts they don't like. The FPS where someone hates snipers so they mod out all long range areas so its only up close, or the opposite and make it so you can't get to the opponents and just have to snipe. They are redesigning the game so they as a player have no weakness. The same goes for cheat codes in electronic games of all sorts, it just takes out a lot of the challenge. Even seemingly simple ones like extra/infinite ammo, because "it sucks to run out" but ammo being a limited resource was a specifically designed part of the game and if you are running out it means you have to be more conservative. See the complaints about how the revitalization chambers in BioShock took all of the challenge out of the game.

Its also one of the reasons I don't like Superman or Batman very much, they really have no weaknesses. Superman's is entirely contrived and is only an issue if they go way out of their way to introduce it. It seems like they are never really challenged because they have no weaknesses.

Then there is Battletech, where I prefer the stock designs over custom designs. Sure the stock designs are not as good, they have clear weaknesses, but I think that makes the game much more interesting. Sure the Rifleman has weak armor, but thats part of what makes it a Rifleman, if you take the same size 'Mech and equip it almost the same but change the armor... well its not really a Rifleman any more. There are in fact a lot of designs that are better known for their weaknesses as their strengths. They all have interesting in-universe reasons for their shortcomings as well. And teaching someone the game, they'll learn it a lot better with 'Mechs with problems then they will if you give them optimized balanced builds that doesn't force them to think about their actions as much.

The same is true in Warhammer Fantasy. Dwarfs'* obvious weakness is their slow movement but its one of the defining factors in how they play. And undead have the weakness of not being able to flee for a tactical advantage, but thats balance as well as a flaw a good player has to work around. And the times someone tries to mix two different armies, generally to try and hide the weaknesses of each, it breaks the game and it stops working correctly.
*GW doesn't do Dwarves


Of course with an RPG, even without any mechanical shortcomings a character can have weaknesses. But they end up being kind of like Superman where its all sort of contrived. And it kind of seems like an After-School-Special where "it turns out I had the power in me to overcome it all the time" sort of thing. And having a weakness of not being able to pass a red-light district in town without spending 20% of your money isn't really a weakness.

I think the group dynamic, the fact that one person can't do it all and needs to rely on others for help, is one of the best parts of a game and one of the reasons why I like class based systems. The removal of group dependencies in MMOs is also one of the worst things that WoW seems to have pushed on the genre. (at least at the non-raid level in WoW, don't want to derail this before it starts, but it really pushed the everyone can solo thing into mainstream MMO development).


The main point of fun I get from games is the sense of challenge. In computer games PvP is almost always more of a challenge then PvE, which is also why so many people find it more fun. Although I know thats not universal.
In an TT RPG you've got two basic forms of challenges, mechanical and non-mechanical. The advantage of the TT RPG is of course that non-mechanical challenges are a lot easier to do and a lot more common, but I think its best when you have both types available. If a character has no mechanical weaknesses then its much harder to have a good mechanical challenge. And of course if you are just going for non-mechanical challenges then your mechanical optimization means nothing, and in fact you could have most of those challenges as a commoner just as well as a level 20 wizard.
And generally a mechanically optimized player just fights higher level opponents, but I don't see what the advantage is of being able to fight an adult red dragon at level 11 as an optimized character instead of fighting it at level 14 as a normal character, especially when the the DM is going to be building the encounters around the characters anyway. But with high optimization some challenges for a normal party can't really be duplicated for the optimized party. Not even being on these parts of the board very long, the strong trend of DMs asking how to handle and challenge highly optimized parties is very clear.

So why take a character and optimize all of your weaknesses away so that what you can be challenged by is much more limited?
You can't challenge the party with a BBE single bruiser type enemy because it will be nuked down before it can do anything. You've got to really specialize your encounters in specific ways to get any challenge. Or the thread about challenging a group of highly optimized casters where there are only a couple of very high level monsters with the abilities to debuff the party to the point of being able to challenge them.
To my mind by highly optimizing you are actually limiting the ways a DM can challenge you and give you a fun game.

edit: I'm going to edit this in because a lot of people seem to have skipped the middle posts and/or are specifically trying to misread what I was meaning.

Min-maxing and the "high" levels of optimization are the problem. Since I'm not aware of a standard set of definitions of levels of optimization. I'm not trying to say a specifically poorly designed character would be good, but that some middle ground would be best. I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.

[randomhero00]

Woa there. Batman definitely has plenty of weaknesses. Like he's mortal.
Superman has cryptoknite.

But ya, i think most people dislike playing perfect characters,

[Tengu_temp]

I fail to see the connection. Most reasonably optimized characters have weaknesses, especially in games that encourage you to take weaknesses (hello, M&M!). Optimized DND 3e casters don't because spellcasting is massively overpowered in that game.

As for MMOs, I will just say two things: it feels much more satisfying to beat challenges on your own, without relying on others, and I really don't like when an MMO forces you to group with random, often idiotic people, to do anything level-appropriate.

[Erloas]

Woa there. Batman definitely has plenty of weaknesses. Like he's mortal.
Superman has cryptoknite.

But ya, i think most people dislike playing perfect characters,

I'm sure Batman has weaknesses, but at least in the movies and cartoons, he doesn't really. And mortal almost never comes into it when no one can really beat you up and your suit deflects bullets like they are nothing. He's always got the answer for everything, no matter how obscure it is (though his toolbelt of everything has gotten better over the years).

As for Superman, yes, cryptoknite, and entirely contrived weakness that is specifically added to give him a weakness so they can have some thing for him to overcome.

In the end most of the challenge either of them have is having to decide between saving one thing or another, or saving someone or getting revenge, and the majority of the time they are so great that they get both done anyway. And yes, some of that is genre expectations, but I think it leads to the same thing.

[WarKitty]

As someone who prefers to DM for more highly optimized groups:

I've found the trouble with lower optimization is that you really can't challenge them in interesting ways. They simply don't have the breadth of tools to take on the challenge. The unoptimized party has one way of dealing with things - stab it until it dies. Which means every battle consists of a straightforward slugfest, and monsters that require a different approach simply can't be used. In D&D, this means nothing incorporeal, nothing with significant DR, and nothing that relies primarily on spellcasting.

Optimized characters are more fun because they can take on a wider breadth of challenges and not die. They can be challenged in interesting ways rather than simply be given variations on "this hits harder".

[Sarone]

As someone who prefers to DM for more highly optimized groups:

I've found the trouble with lower optimization is that you really can't challenge them in interesting ways. They simply don't have the breadth of tools to take on the challenge. The unoptimized party has one way of dealing with things - stab it until it dies. Which means every battle consists of a straightforward slugfest, and monsters that require a different approach simply can't be used. In D&D, this means nothing incorporeal, nothing with significant DR, and nothing that relies primarily on spellcasting.

Optimized characters are more fun because they can take on a wider breadth of challenges and not die. They can be challenged in interesting ways rather than simply be given variations on "this hits harder".

Welcome to WoW and World of 4th Ed.

Not to mention, this topic feels like it is about minmaxing and not optimizing. There's a significant difference between the two, but moslty in "how do I build my character" departments. I'll use Steve, a 1st Level fighter with a 20 point buy.

With minmaxing, Steve is a hulking brute of a man with a greatsword. His has max points in Strength and Constitution, with enough in Dex so he'll have a good Initiative and maybe in wisdom so he can spot traps and not botch a will save. However, he has a tendency of yelling "Steve smashes (whatever)", is not very sociable, and has problems with simple math problems.

With optimizing, Steve is a big man weilding the same greatsword. While he is not as strong or tough as minmaxed Steve, he is more well rounded. He isn't very sociable, since he plays the part of a scarred, rough mercenary, but he can talk to people and not be confused by simple math. He has a decent Intelligence and Wisdom, enough to to get a +1 out of both stats, and spends the rest of his points on a mix of Strength, con, and dex.

However, even this the two descriptions about, neither one is particularly good without a someone willing to roleplay them. The only thing the minmaxer is good for, honestly, is roll playing an encounter, which in this case trying to hit said enemy with a greatsword. The optimizer can have a life outside of combat, and be useful in non-combat situations, even if it's only "stand here and look tough."

But that's my view. I am definetely enjoying this topic, though.

[Totally Guy]

In an TT RPG you've got two basic forms of challenges, mechanical and non-mechanical. The advantage of the TT RPG is of course that non-mechanical challenges are a lot easier to do and a lot more common, but I think its best when you have both types available.

I'm not sure what you mean by a non-mechanical challenge. Can you elaborate?

[Erloas]

Not to mention, this topic feels like it is about minmaxing and not optimizing. There's a significant difference between the two, but moslty in "how do I build my character" departments.
Well min-maxing and certain levels of optimization. Since I'm not aware of a standard set of definitions of levels of optimization. I'm not trying to say a specifically poorly designed character would be good, but that some middle ground would be best. I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.


I'm not sure what you mean by a non-mechanical challenge. Can you elaborate? I wasn't sure of a relatively short way of saying exactly what I meant. Basically challenges that involve more then rolling dice for attacks or skill checks. Things like puzzles and situations that require the player to think of something clever to get past. Something like crossing a river when you've got something you can't just swim with and can't just fly over with. Some social encounters that are handled via roleplaying rather then a couple diplomacy checks and a bluff or two.

[Gamer Girl]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

[FatJose]

Part of that though is the journey. Superman and Batman are pretty cool,if you ask me. But only if they actually worked to get there. Not the case, though. Its like the point made about cheat codes. Instead of having adventures and the character developing until he becomes a dynamo, Superman is just instantly awesome and Batman is a super genius combatant. Superman and Batman classes can instantly cast 9th level spells and have Damage Reduction/40.

I think it would be a much more different story if we actually saw Superman get there over time. Batman trained for years and years, but all we really see is the result. Instead of being a high-level Rogue/Paladin/Monk/Whatever he's a level 1 Batman...which just happens to be a Rogue, Paladin, Monk Gestalt.

Sadly, the more balanced characters aren't as well known. Example, every group of teen super-heroes, especially the more obscure groupings and the JLA reject teams like Elongated Man, Blue Beetle and Booster Gold.

[Ashram]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

Well, to be fair, if you're going for a fairly-low op game, Rath could be a decent finesse-rogue who focuses a bit more on stabbing people and pickpocketing rather than hunting for traps. :P

[SowZ]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

How is Batman, a completely psychotic hero with what is dange near a God complex who gets off on beating people to near death and has NO powers boring? He is nowhere near invincible. He is often wary of a single enemy with a machine gun.

[Xanmyral]

It seems like your problem is less with general optimization, but rather with going way to far with it, I.E. Pun-Pun, going crazy with night sticks, Batman Wizard on crack. I'd have to agree that a perfect character is boring, and one of the reasons I really dislike Superman. I'd be fine with batman if he was the result of a few years worth of seasons that show him working towards what he is now, but it didn't. Onto the real discussion however... I only see people playing extremely heavily optimized characters when it is appropriate in the campaign, as in if the enemies are also as strong and such. Pretty much the only real problem with optimization is when it isn't necessary, and detracts from the original fun of the game. Like if someone played Pun-Pun in a game where people still think monks are the best thing ever.

[Blazen]

First, a quick note regarding Superman. Kryptonite is not his only weakness. He is still vulnerable to magic, radiation, and lantern rings. There are still objects, and creatures that can beat him through sheer force. Some of the things that he does are outdone by other characters (notably, The Flash is faster than him). Finally, he is solar powered. If he spends too much time away from a yellow Sun he is no better than any random civilian.

I also have to agree that optimizing is more fun because you can throw bigger challenges. In 4e, if a group is not too well optimized then they won't be able to handle many of the harder challenges.

[Talvereaux]

I like optimizing because you work to get there.

I think the big difference between an overpowered story character (like Superman) and an optimized character in gaming is that the former is powerful because they were wrote that way. No further effort is really needed. Want them to be the most powerful character ever made? Just say they're immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and it's done. Want them to have a solution for every problem to come up? That's easy, they're as prepared as you want them to be.

Meanwhile, the latter requires meticulous knowledge of the game's system to be created. For a character in an RPG to be played at their full potential, you plan ahead, crunch numbers, and weigh what powers are worth having, and which ones should be tossed, all to prepare for as many plausible situations as possible. This takes a thorough understanding of the metagame and creative thinking to make the character as adaptable to their surrounding campaign world as possible.

I like minmaxing because I think of it as a rewarding intellectual exercise. The same can not be said for making Supergod in a strictly narrative medium. I agree to finding overpowered characters to be rather dull in a story, but in a game, we're talking about a completely different medium, and different rules for making and operating strong characters.

[Talya]

Do you place ability scores in sensible places for the job you want to perform? If so, you're an optimizer.

Do you pick feats based on things you want your character to be able to do? If so, you're an optimizer.

Do you pick your class based on the function you want your character to have? If so, you're an optimizer.


People don't pick a d20 fighter and try to squeeze them into a skillmonkey or spellcaster job, because the class can't perform those functions. They're optimizers.

Optimizing simply means making sensible choices that allow you to build an effective character. This doesn't mean the character will have no weaknesses. It doesn't even mean they'll be overpowered. A d20 fighter optimized to high heaven with the most cheesy tactics possible still can't keep up to a druid with only the barest minimum of optimization (like having a high wisdom and constitution.) That fighter will have some glaring weaknesses. The druid probably won't have any glaring weaknesses. (That's a function of d20 3.x, not optimizing.) Optimizing simply means building a character in a manner that lets them do their job reasonably competently.

[Jude_H]

I get the feeling that the meaning and use of 'Optimize' have finally gotten that divorce.

[Erloas]

I like optimizing because you work to get there.
That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

[WarKitty]

That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

Actually a part of optimization (at least for me) is building a character that has tricks that work all the way up. A character that doesn't have to suffer through being useless at any particular level - while that may make a decent story, I've found in a roleplaying game having a character that's ineffective frustrates the entire table. Many of the non-optimized builds simply don't have much to contribute to a fight at higher levels, other than standing around leaning on their swords.

[Gorgondantess]

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

That's because Rath is an example from 2e AD&D, where stats worked very differently. Indeed, Rath could be a rogue or wizard as effectively as pretty much anyone else, as in AD&D stats between 6 and 16 had little to no mechanical effect on a character except for class qualifications and Nonweapon Proficiencies. It's not the mindset, it's the system. Using Rath as an example is like using an example from a system where having 5 in a stat is a high number- it's simply not applicable. 2e AD&D and 3.5 are only superficially similar systems, but the actual mechanics have little to no relation.

[Talvereaux]

That depends really. I don't know most of the 3.5 splatbooks, but I could come here and spend a couple minutes reading a thread or simply posting "I'm looking for X" and someone else can do all the work for me. And I think that is at least common enough that a lot of high powered builds have specific names to them and the ideas are common enough that a lot of people are doing them. It seems rare, maybe even impossible, to come up with something that other people haven't already seen, though its a given that not everyone will have checked online and you can find the same thing on your own without knowing others already figured it out.

There are multiple cookie cutter builds because there is no universal 'perfect' build. It all varies with the constraints and circumstances of the surrounding campaign world.

A lot of spells or feats are context-sensitive, and vary between being unusable and perfect depending on what your DM throws at you. For instance, the choice to prepare Entangle and Plant Growth can end up either rewarding or a sad waste depending on whether your session ends up in a forest or a stone fortress.

The famous "mages are Batman" allegory comes from the class being centered on preparation and forethought. The player needs to know how to make informed choices and be proactive to adapt to what happens next. If you're really just copy-pasting guides without mentally absorbing something out of it, or being prepared to make creative choices, you aren't going to run to the best of your ability.


And not all games start at level 1, I would actually be surprised if most games started at level 3 or less, though thats the sort of thing that would be hard to measure. In which case a lot of the earlier, more awkward levels before the combos really start kicking in, are not even worked through. So you do sort of just skip the build up and go to the super power.

It doesn't matter if you start from level 1 or 21. You still need to build your character.

[Talya]

I get the feeling that the meaning and use of 'Optimize' have finally gotten that divorce.

Not really, because my example of the definition of optimizing covers all possible levels of it.

let's say you rolled your stats, as a 3.5 wizard, and got a 17, 15, 12, 11, and 8.

Putting the 17 in intelligence? That's optimizing. Is there a problem with that?

That's not fundamentally different than building a killer gnome super-illusionist. It's just a matter of how far you take it. If you think optimizing is a problem, then you have an issue with people assigning their ability scores appropriately.

Perhaps it's just "extreme" levels of optimization one has an issue with. But then you have to define it. At what point does it become a problem? When does it start to be an issue? Is it an issue of power? The ability to dominate gameplay and trivialize encounters? A 3rd edition monk who optimizes as extremely as possible is still going to lag behind the party, whereas the 3rd edition druid who barely pays attention to optimizing will likely still dominate every encounter. So why is the monk's optimizing an issue? Why is the druid who didn't optimize not a problem when they're still trivializing gameplay?

Blanket statements indicating a "problem with optimization" don't really take these things into account. Where's the dividing line? How to you categorize the difference between cheese and simple smart play? It's not always going to be so easy.

I once thought it was the height of cheese to stack the Dervish PrC (in Complete Warrior, 3.5) with the Scout class, because people would get skirmish damage on every single attack. I considered that tacky, over-the-top munchkinism, stacking of synergistic features. But it does nothing to trivialize gameplay. It's not even a very good option. So where do you draw the line? Where's the level of optimization you think is unacceptable? Pun-pun? Well yes, I agree with you there. Just playing a druid? How about that? In some campaigns, that's enough optimization right there to ruin everyone's experience. I don't think it's cheese to pick a primary option in the SRD, though.

Where is the line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable levels of optimization?

[Kilo24]

Character optimization is about understanding the rules to the game and doing what you can to make the most competent character within a given set of constraints. It is about minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths - but a well-designed rules system will not let let you eliminate weaknesses.

3rd edition and its later brethren have had so much added with time to it that things like Pun-Pun slip through. With the glut of material held to inconsistent standards, they cease to be well-designed and house rules/DM fiat/agreements are required to make them playable and/or fun.

Optimization is not a problem. Shoddy, unbalanced rules are.

Unfortunately, balancing to a significant degree becomes expensive in time and effort, so there's a lot of shoddy, unbalanced rules out there. A lot of things intended to be viable choices in RPGs simply aren't or are so powerful that they are the only viable choice. If the majority of choices are crap, that's fine for the people who know the rules well (and for the company selling you all this extra material) - they'll just realize that the options are worthless. Where the problem occurs is when players come in and don't have the time or effort (or money) to wade through all the crap. They just accept the premise that all classes and options are roughly equal, because they can't afford exploring the deeper premises. So they make unoptimized characters that don't take advantage of all their options.

Playing with both optimized and unoptimized characters is the biggest source of "problems with optimization", because the unoptimized characters will be relatively ineffective. The DM can't challenge the optimized players without also slaughtering the unoptimized ones. And in games with lots of options, the people who put in a lot of effort to compare all the options are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't, making them the people who stick out and therefore the easiest targets. Especially when there's a vast difference in capabilities between supposedly equal options (like with spellcasters in pre-4th-edition D&D).

But, if the optimized characters support the party well then that can be alleviated (this is one of the things that 4th edition does really well with in combat - encourage party collaboration.) That way, the unoptimized characters are directly benefitting from their optimized teammates.

[shadow_archmagi]

No weaknesses? Most optimization I see is designed to increase strengths rather than decrease weaknesses. A shock-trooper greataxe build hasn't removed any fundamental flaw from the Fighter; he still can't knit baskets or use diplomacy. He just hits harder than he previously hit.

[Totally Guy]

Are you sure the problem you have is with optimisation or could it be that you have a problem with situations that have optimal responses?

I mean I can totally see an argument for that.

Do I save my friend or kill the leader or the orcs? If the answer is both (with very little creativity required) then the choice wasn't a real choice. Is that kind of situation a thing that you try to make prominent in your gaming sessions?

The existence of optimal choices (because, when analysed, they aren't really choices at all) within the gameplay is different from players choosing optimal choices at character creation. But I guess they're related...

If you are trying to make "love or vengeance" type situations in the game then, to a degree, d&d style optimisation could lead to these being particularly contrived.

Another thing to consider is that players tend to create characters that interact with the part of the game the player is most interested in. Lets say I make a fighter. In most cases that's me saying to the GM, "I wants to see lots of fights in this game". If you look at an optimised character from this viewpoint you might see a more refined scope of challenge that'd be a turn on for the player.

[Jude_H]

Where is the line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable levels of optimization?
This is what I mean.

An "optimized" D&D character is almost never optimal. Unless it involves an omnipotence trick (which are almost universally frowned upon), it does have weaknesses and it can't do everything on its own.

Much of the OP seems founded in the denotative use of "optimal." It is understandable, but misguided.

The parts about the process of tinkering, trying to make things better, seems to be a separate argument relating to adherence to archetypes. That's a completely different discussion than most of the OP and this thread, so I'm not going to touch it.

[Lord Raziere]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

[WarKitty]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

This is...not what most of us mean by the word "optimizing." That's min-maxing. Different beast altogether.

[shadow_archmagi]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

If optimizing is exclusive to the realm of going too far, what do you call decisions that fall between "Obvious" and "Extreme?"

Redefining the word to mean "only the bad thing" isn't really beneficial to the discussion.

[Lord Raziere]

If optimizing is exclusive to the realm of going too far, what do you call decisions that fall between "Obvious" and "Extreme?"

Redefining the word to mean "only the bad thing" isn't really beneficial to the discussion.

I call those decisions "dangerous", I call them things that should be handled carefully and with thought.

[Talya]

optimizing is not making common sense decisions that make sense for the character.

it is going too far and outright go beyond what makes sense for them and making them too powerful for the level they are supposed to be.

if its common sense and everyone does it, it ain't optimizing. optimizing is people trying to be better than the norm and becoming overpowered, while people who make sub-optimal choices intentionally are just weakening the group. both optimizers and anti-optimizers are detrimental to group balance.

Rule (1) of life: There is no such thing as "common" sense. I'm not being cynical here and suggesting people are stupid across the board. (Not at the moment, anyway.) I'm saying that no two people have the exact same "common sense," so sense isn't common to all. It's very differnet from person to person. See what I said earlier about how I used to think Dervish + Scout were terrible cheese...but now I'd discourage someone from taking that option because it's just not very good.

Beyond that: You're playing heroes in the world you're in. You're supposed to be better than the norm -- or else you'd be playing commoners with 10s and 11s across the board. You're playing a great wizard, or a great swordsman, or a divinely favored holy man, or an exceptional thief...why would you not want to actually build your character to fit what you're envisioning?

The dictionary definition of optimize, and how it's used on boards like this, is "to make as effective as possible." We do this in real life -- most of us try to optimize certain skill sets and make ourselves better at our hobbies or jobs. We try to be better than other people. Life is competition, it's a darwinian struggle from beginning to end. Why should our characters be any different? They should be better than us, in actuality. And a big part of these games is character building - designing a character is strategic. Using that character's abilities in gameplay is tactical. Both strategy and tactics are integral parts of tabletop RPGs.

So in the end, your definition here is still in need of specifics.

Where do you draw the line?

[slaydemons]

I dislike this negative spin the thought of optimizing, why because deep down you know everyone does it.... no I mean that literally everyone. to me optimizing can be as simple as putting your highest stat on something your class relies on. like int for a wizard or con/str/dex as a fighter. now I am not sure about you but. Bob the soldier(fighter) who spend a lot of his childhood learning to swing his sword should know a bit something about speed and power. but maybe neglected his studies a bit so he isn't as smart, weaknesses are fine but you shouldn't say you don't optimize.

my two cp.

[Partysan]

The important question is: What do you optimize?

When I optimize a character (and I do that for every one of my characters) then I optimize a concept. That concept has both fluff and crunch based components, like personality and fighting style. Optimizing means finding the mechanics that to the best possible way represent the concept.

If your concept is just "megapowerful guy" then you'll end up with an effective but boring character. But that isn't the fault of the optimization process, it's your character concept that's crappy!

Besides, as others have said, every concept poses its own mechanical constraints. If my concept entails a fighting style based on disarming and grappling, then I'm rather helpless against animals, regardless of how good I am at disarming people.
Additionally there are ropeplaying based weaknesses which a character might or might not have independently of his optimization level.

[Jude_H]

The dictionary definition of optimize, and how it's used on boards like this, is "to make as effective as possible."
If that were true, every build would be a Kobold Paladin.

Given this board's penchant to refluff, conflicting concept wouldn't be an issue.

This is worth pointing out because if it were true, the OP would have a point.

[Notreallyhere77]

The main point of fun I get from games is the sense of challenge. ...Although I know thats not universal.

Min-maxing and the "high" levels of optimization are the problem. Since I'm not aware of a standard set of definitions of levels of optimization. I'm not trying to say a specifically poorly designed character would be good, but that some middle ground would be best. I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.

This is my take, too. As both a player and a DM, I want the party to have a decent chance of success, but as a team, not as the-optimiser-and-whoever-beats-his-initiative-in-the-first-round. It's hard to challenge a mixed-op party.

[navar100]

No player character is perfect by the fact that no player is perfect. Every choice a player makes defines his character. A character's "weakness" does not have to be defined by a number written on a character sheet. The player's/character's own goals defines his weakness. What he cares about will drive his actions.

In any case, it is not a crime against gamedom for a player character to be good at something. As you say, that's your problem.

[Talya]

If that were true, every build would be a Kobold Paladin.

Given this board's penchant to refluff, conflicting concept wouldn't be an issue.

This is worth pointing out because if it were true, the OP would have a point.

"As possible" implies there are constraints in place. Your character concept is one of those things. For instance, I rarely play anything ugly, too far from the human norm in appearance. No thri-keens, no water orcs, no hobgoblins, no hadoze, no dragonborn, no venerable dragonwrought kobolds, etc. I typically come up with a concept first, then build to fit it. I still try to make that character as effective as possible within those limitations. As partysan put it, it's "optimizing a concept."

Let's put this another way:

Let's say you level up to level 3, as a big sword-weilding melee type. You have a choice of two feats. One of those feats gives you +1 to hit with your favorite weapon. The other feat gives you +3 to hit and damage with any weapon. Which are you going to pick?

"Common sense" would have you pick the one that makes you as effective as possible. Yet compared to the other stuff out there, it might be overpowered. (it's not, but we're treating these two feats as isolated.) Are you going to gimp yourself so that you are not "optimizing?" Which technique do you think your character would prefer to learn? Such a simple choice like that is no different than more complex optimizing...it's the same thought process and same rationale.


Note that I am not saying that optimizing cannot be taken to far, for any given group. It most certainly can. (I referenced "pun-pun" earlier.) There are builds so complex and lacking in any concept-consistency they make my stomach turn. But you can't just say "Optimizing is bad." Everyone optimizes.

[Cracklord]

I think there are some incorrect premises this thread is based on. I'll adress them now.

First up, I have a suspicion that nobody here has ever actually read a comic with Superman in it. Superman is awesome, and the majority of his dislike comes from people who haven't actually read any of his stories because they can't imagine themselves liking a protagonist who is perfect. They find him difficult to relate to because he doesn't have to worry about the same problems we do. Which, to me at least, is a real shame, because I think it says something terrible about a lot of people. Nobody can relate to someone who always tries to do the right thing and to fix the problems put to him in the best way he can. Nobody can relate to someone striving to be an example to everyone, and lead the world to a better way.
Aha, you say, but that's pretty easy when you're bullet-proof. With respect, sir, Superman fights people stronger then him all the time. You have some genuine points in there, but the fact is that's only a problem to a writer who can't think of a way to challenge him.
There is a lot of bad stuff written about Superman. There is also some incredible stuff, that really does him justice. Kingdom Come, for example. He might be perfect, but the world isn't, and there in lies Supermans greatest challenge.
The fact is, yes he's fast, strong, can fly and shoot lazers out of his eyes and all the rest, but that's appropriate for the sort of challenges he deals with most of the time. I know he also has camp, non-threatening gimicy-themed villains like Toyman and stuff, left over from the silver age, but they very rarely appear anymore, and good riddance.
Darkseid is a god. Literally, on his home planet reality is his bitch. And there are plenty of individuals with almost the same level of power out there.
As for him 'just suddenly' having his powers, that depends where you start. If you start in the middle, then yes he does. But his origin has been written literally dozens of times, so that's you choosing to ignore it. Hell, Smallville has a lot of seasons now, so if you want to watch him go from pushing in posts at his farm to lifting islands and juggling planets, that's easy enough to arrange.
At the end of the day, he's a fantasy, just like all fiction. A power fantasy. But instead of focussing on our dark side, and showing what we'd love to do if we were free of consequences, he does the opposite, and shows a rare, positive bent of it. If you are going to imagine yourself near omnipotence, you can't pick a better subject then Superman.

I hope you read that, because the same goes to any optimized character. Mechanically? They are a bitch to keep track of, and the DM often gets very annoyed with all the cross classing and not having a clue as to his players capabilities. To be honest, I prefer people to remain single classed. I don't even much like prestige classes. However, I'm fine with people doing what they want, because there is enough room in the game for everyone. There is no reason that stories about optimized, well put together characters can't have stories just as good and well written as those of a weaker bent.
And in the same way, players who don't optimize aren't necessarily awesome roleplayers who want to focus on non-combat and play to their characters weaknesses, just as stories with bland, average protagonists are not necessarily great reading material.

I can't stand the Shipping News. I find it to be glorification of incompetence and weakness. I like action movies, and prefer their protagonists. One is a character who refuses to act in a way that isn't cowardly, all for the sake of perpetuating his misery, and the entire book is non-stop whining. I had to read it in school, and literature scholars tell me it is a work of art.
Where as the main character in Die Hard is a man able to turn his hand to any challenge, to kill other armed men with ease and improvise solutions to insurmountable problems off the top of his head.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I know which one I'm turning to for entertainment every time. The Shipping News might 'have more value' (whatever that means) but at the end of the day, it's not fun.
The two protagonists are not transferable. If you told the Shipping News with the protagonist from Die Hard, it would be resolved in moments, as the entire story depends on him not having a backbone. If you tried to put the protagonist from the Shipping News in Die Hard, the results would not be pretty.
It's not that optimized characters can't have stories told about them. It's that you need to tell appropriate stories for them to be part of, rather then try to force them into the stories you write for normal characters, and get frustrated when they don't fit.

Now I'll admit that dozen contingency private demiplane permanent foresight wizards are boring for most DMs. But it's better to light a candle then curse the darkness. Because there are challenges for that sort of character, you just need to think of the right ones. What do you do? You invent new challenges for them, rather then create dungeons for them to scry and die. And what challenges can there be?
To extend the comic metaphor: The Batman needs a Joker. Create a high level bard with mindblank who attacks the Wizards friends and allies, uses his charm spells to turn them against him, and who forces the wizard to step outside his usual scry and die tactics, whittling him away and eventually forcing the wizard to meet him on his own terms in a climactic showdown. Have him simply escape whenever the wizard tires to pin him down, and only fight on his own terms. Sure, there are some players who won't involve themselves in that and just play from a purely mechanical standpoint, but you are better off without them anyway.

In the end, a good storyteller can always think of something. And a good player can tell the story of any character, no matter what his powers may be. But I'd rather have a character who can do both, rather then a character unable to step above the crushing bar of terminal incompetence and do more then fight first level warriors, or a near god who can only be challenged by arbitrary armies of pseudonatural paragon Tarrasques (Tarrasqui? Tarresquia?) led by a pseudonatural paragon Asmodeus (campaign idea...). It's not the builds, it's the stories you tell with them.

[Talya]

Actually, my problem with Superman --and it's a minor one, I still like Superman-- is that the moral of the stories appears to be "Brawn (Supes) beats brains (Lex)."

Apart from that, I agree with you, to a point. The problem is that generally, people do not play alone. Vastly different levels of optimization (or simple tiers of class strength) in a party can make it very difficult to design an encounter where everyone can contribute.

[Erloas]

It seems a lot of people want to purposefully miss the point. It would be silly to complain about people putting the highest stats in the ones most important to their class, or taking feats they might actually use.
And there is no good way to "draw the line" on what is too much and what isn't. But as a general rule if you build, or even just run a character in a way that makes level appropriate encounters trivial then I think that detracts from the game. If you, by yourself, can easily take encounters that were designed for an entire party of your level, then you've taken optimization too far.

And yes, in some cases just taking a straight druid or wizard could be taking things too far if you go out of your way to make sure you are a one man army. That might mean not taking/using certain feats or spells because they break the game, if you know its broken, even if its a base spell, then don't take it or at least don't use it in the broken manner. Just because you have gate doesn't mean you have to take the things to give you +CL so you can chain summon solars. Maybe that means taking a more "utility" like or story based animal companion as a druid.



Like in OOTS, where V barred divination, its something no one that was optimizing much would do, but it does so much to keep the challenges in the story relevant. The blaster wizard is one of the least powerful, and its basically what V is, but it works well for the story and doesn't make the character suck. How could this story be told if Roy was some charging/pouncing combat monster that would have taking out Xykon in a single round of combat.
That of course doesn't mean you can't still tell a story when you're highly optimizing, but I think it does a lot to limit what you can do. How many of the challenges the OOTS faced would have been trivial or have to have been changed drastically if V could use divination?

[The Glyphstone]

Actually, my problem with Superman --and it's a minor one, I still like Superman-- is that the moral of the stories appears to be "Brawn (Supes) beats brains (Lex)."

Apart from that, I agree with you, to a point. The problem is that generally, people do not play alone. Vastly different levels of optimization (or simple tiers of class strength) in a party can make it very difficult to design an encounter where everyone can contribute.

I get more of a 'Int is worthless without Wisdom', considering all the tropes about how Lex could be set for life if he stopped obsessing about Supes. Superman's also supposed to be a genius, though not Lex's intellect level.




Like in OOTS, where V barred divination, its something no one that was optimizing much would do, but it does so much to keep the challenges in the story relevant. The blaster wizard is one of the least powerful, and its basically what V is, but it works well for the story and doesn't make the character suck. How could this story be told if Roy was some charging/pouncing combat monster that would have taking out Xykon in a single round of combat.
That of course doesn't mean you can't still tell a story when you're highly optimizing, but I think it does a lot to limit what you can do. How many of the challenges the OOTS faced would have been trivial or have to have been changed drastically if V could use divination?

You mean Conjuration, right?

[Cracklord]

Actually, my problem with Superman --and it's a minor one, I still like Superman-- is that the moral of the stories appears to be "Brawn (Supes) beats brains (Lex)."

Apart from that, I agree with you, to a point. The problem is that generally, people do not play alone. Vastly different levels of optimization (or simple tiers of class strength) in a party can make it very difficult to design an encounter where everyone can contribute.

Superman's smart. He's won pulitzer prizes for journalism.

But more to the point, Lex has incredible raw intellect, but little emotional maturity. Superman is the opposite. Lex can invent a cure for cancer or whatever, but he's a psychopath who has no empathy for other people, and can't relate to them in a meaningful way. He can fake it well enough, if only for the sake of manipulation, but the fact of the matter is he sees other people as insects.
Superman is all empathy, and cares about other people's happiness as much as his own. He genuinely wants to help, and as such he is (within his own world at least) widely liked and looked up to, while Lex is jealous of the attention. Luthor might be smarter, but Superman is wiser.


Like in OOTS, where V barred divination, its something no one that was optimizing much would do, but it does so much to keep the challenges in the story relevant. The blaster wizard is one of the least powerful, and its basically what V is, but it works well for the story and doesn't make the character suck. How could this story be told if Roy was some charging/pouncing combat monster that would have taking out Xykon in a single round of combat.
That of course doesn't mean you can't still tell a story when you're highly optimizing, but I think it does a lot to limit what you can do. How many of the challenges the OOTS faced would have been trivial or have to have been changed drastically if V could use divination?

As I sad, yes, they couldn't tell THAT story. But there are an infinite number of stories. So rather then worry you'll never get to tell one story, tell another! The world is wide, and full of peril! Sure, it does mean the challenges you face are different, but hey! If they were optimized, maybe Xykon would remember their names.

[Talya]

But as a general rule if you build, or even just run a character in a way that makes level appropriate encounters trivial then I think that detracts from the game. If you, by yourself, can easily take encounters that were designed for an entire party of your level, then you've taken optimization too far.

And I would consider that, in general, to just be intelligent play; if an option is open to you and fits your character concept, and that option might trivialize level appropriate encounters, then by all means you should take it. A good DM will adjust the encounters appropriately, anyway.

[Lord Raziere]

*snip*

no, PCs with 10 and 11's are anti-optimal, a PC with their stats in the right place are not optimizers- they are just playing how the class is supposed to be played
giving a Wizard 18 Int isn't optimizing, it is giving them their natural functionality, so that you can play it normally. its when you find something to give the wizard 40 int at char creation is when you've got optimizing.

in other words, what you is optimizing- I call normal player your spiel about making a character effective and such? thats being a normal character, a normal player, an optimizer is outright broken, overpowered and doing stuff like batman wizard and Pun-Pun.

yes, PC's should be effective what they are supposed to do, playing a wizard, as anything but a wizard is kinda stupid- a wizard who tries to skillmonkey or something is weakening themselves to the groups detriment, not being normal and effective.

in short, playing the game how its supposed to played? is not optimizing.

[Tengu_temp]

I've never been a fan of optimization, and do agree with you.

Superman and Batman are great examples of what I see wrong with gaming. both of them are boring, invincible heroes. No bad guys, except the god like ones, stand a chance against them. It makes for a boring read when 'bad guy shoots Superman and he laughs''. So the comics do more 'story' based plots, where the hero can't use their awesome abilities and must complete the story(and they must forget how cool they are). And this type of story play has crept into D&D, especially 4E. Where the group is there to 'tell a story' and things like random acts and death never happen.


In my gaming style, players often have weak characters. Not every player must play a god-like character. I play with the types of people that like the challenge of normal characters.

Take a normal character:Rath-Str-8, Dex-14, Con-13, Int-13, Wis-7, Chr-6. Just about no 'modern gamer' would ever play a character with stats like that. They would demand that they must have an 18 and at least three other scores over 15. But this type of character is normal in my games.

So, the best game is one that focuses very little on roleplaying and the story, very little on character building and optimization, and one where everything is very random and an unlucky roll of the dice can mean your demise?
http://www.17wojewodztwo.pl/files/monopoly_457.jpg

Also, as other people mentioned here already, when well-written Superman has a lot of interesting, gripping stories and Batman even moreso. And they're not of the "the main character loses his powers" kind (not to mention that Batman doesn't have any).

[Cracklord]

in other words, what you is optimizing- I call normal player your spiel about making a character effective and such? thats being a normal character, a normal player, an optimizer is outright broken, overpowered and doing stuff like batman wizard and Pun-Pun.

That's a munchkin. Optimizing is maximizing your ability to do what you set out to do. That's the actual definition, whatever you think. I suggest using Tome of Battle, cross classing, and maybe a prestige class for luck. You'll be a hell of a lot better then a single classed fighter, but you won't be stealing the power of the gods with a few dice rolls either.

[Partysan]

no, PCs with 10 and 11's are anti-optimal, a PC with their stats in the right place are not optimizers- they are just playing how the class is supposed to be played
giving a Wizard 18 Int isn't optimizing, it is giving them their natural functionality, so that you can play it normally. its when you find something to give the wizard 40 int at char creation is when you've got optimizing.

in other words, what you is optimizing- I call normal player your spiel about making a character effective and such? thats being a normal character, a normal player, an optimizer is outright broken, overpowered and doing stuff like batman wizard and Pun-Pun.

yes, PC's should be effective what they are supposed to do, playing a wizard, as anything but a wizard is kinda stupid- a wizard who tries to skillmonkey or something is weakening themselves to the groups detriment, not being normal and effective.

in short, playing the game how its supposed to played? is not optimizing.

You make a lot of assertions about optimizing that are backed by nothing but your own personal negative interpretation of it.

[Sir Homeslice]

no, PCs with 10 and 11's are anti-optimal, a PC with their stats in the right place are not optimizers- they are just playing how the class is supposed to be played
Which would be... optimal. Surprise surprise.

in short, playing the game how its supposed to played? is not optimizing.
Healbot clerics, sword and board fighters, and blaster wizards aren't very optimal, yes.

[Cracklord]

Healbot clerics, sword and board fighters, and blaster wizards aren't very optimal, yes.

For one thing, they are so cliche even the best player couldn't do anything new and exciting with them, and therefore the stories about them would be bland and generic. Which, I understand, is exactly the opposite of the premise of this thread.

[Talvereaux]

Like in OOTS, where V barred divination, its something no one that was optimizing much would do, but it does so much to keep the challenges in the story relevant. The blaster wizard is one of the least powerful, and its basically what V is, but it works well for the story and doesn't make the character suck. How could this story be told if Roy was some charging/pouncing combat monster that would have taking out Xykon in a single round of combat.
That of course doesn't mean you can't still tell a story when you're highly optimizing, but I think it does a lot to limit what you can do. How many of the challenges the OOTS faced would have been trivial or have to have been changed drastically if V could use divination?

Remember: Order of the Stick is a story, not a Dungeons & Dragons campaign. I don't think examples convert well between mediums because what's good for one is bad for another. That's why they haven't made a good movie based on a video game yet, or a good video game based on Dungeons & Dragons using the RAW.

Stuff that would be acceptable and fun in a game of Dungeons & Dragons would make a crappy story, but that's okay, because D&D isn't strictly a story-telling medium. It's interactive, improvised, and spontaneous. If a D&D campaign were run like a story, it would be boring because it wouldn't flex the interactive ends of the medium. Stories are written with the end in mind. Good stories have anticipated narrative structure. Stories don't allow one to go off the railroad tracks whenever they please, and for good reasons. D&D, however, is different. D&D allows you to surprise the DM. D&D allows the player to shape their own destiny. In D&D, the players can make solutions that haven't been predetermined by the Power of Plot.

Trying to make the plot of a D&D campaign told in the same way of a more established narrative is often mutually exclusive with allowing your players to play the game as they please, as such, D&D campaigns are not run the same way as a good novel or comic. No use in trying to have your cake and eat it.

[Sarone]

no, PCs with 10 and 11's are anti-optimal, a PC with their stats in the right place are not optimizers- they are just playing how the class is supposed to be played
giving a Wizard 18 Int isn't optimizing, it is giving them their natural functionality, so that you can play it normally. its when you find something to give the wizard 40 int at char creation is when you've got optimizing.


A 40 INT at 1st Level? That, my good sir, is called DM ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION. It's like Minmax from GOBLINS or Pete from Darths and Droids, where the player is taking a bunch of random and obscure penalities and disadvantages for the simple fact of being a "better character", when in actuality it's just so they dominate a few areas (like combat), or try to grab some powers/abilities that wouldn't (and SHOULDN'T) be allowed unless the players, scenarios, and situations are roughly equal.

By my definition, an optimizer or optimizing player is someone who does his best to create a character with in the rules and does so in order to come up with a character that is unique (even though you might have seen it a dozen times) for the campaign/game. This type of person, while he might be able to dominate in certain situations, is doing more so through thinking about options, using their (and the party's) abilities to their fullest, and having good dice rolls.

A minmaxer, on the other hand, is someone who tries to create a character with the intent of breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage. This is done by taking low abilites and high abilities, various disadvantages and advantages, and other underhanded ways with the INTENT of "beating the game". The only way this will even make it into a campaign is if THE GM IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION OR DOESN'T CARE.

That is the difference between a minmax player and someone who optimizes.

[CodeRed]

In short, playing the game how its supposed to played? is not optimizing.

Woah. Stop right there. You have an opinion on how the game should be played but you don't get to make blanket statements like that. No one does.

As to the level of optimizing? So a character that can beat a monster that is CR 2 above him is too powerful? Which monster and what abilities do they have? If you put a Fighter against a beast made specifically to shutdown casters, he'll laugh then impale it on a sword. Encounters should be tailored to the characters in the group.

As to using CR and ECL as measuring sticks? Hah. That's a good laugh. The CR system is woefully crappy and imbalanced. It swings the entire pendulum from under-CR'd so bad its criminal to so overestimated that you could kill it and gain an entire level's worth of XP with no effort. I mean there have been several read through threads this month alone about books like the Monster Manual II and what monsters in it are way off from their supposed CR.

Optimization is what you do if you intend to play this game at all. You put your 18 in INT if playing a wizard. A frontline fighter gets a high CON score, etcetera. The problem I think attempting to be expressed is when it becomes unfun. If you as a player are completely replacing or making useless someone in the party, your a jerk. Optimization is not to be blamed for that as optimization is merely an idea. Your poor sense of community and sportsmanship drags things down. As well, there is a world of difference between practical and theoretical optimization. Practical is the basic stuff, take feats that actually do things to make you better, choose a good prestige class and so on. Theoretical OP is when you intentionally game the system with its shoddy rules and wordings to do things way beyond what others with decent system mastery can pull off.

[Talya]

Well, the original poster suggested his definition of optimizing includes anything that trivializes an encounter. He suggested some classes would need to intentionally avoid certain spells or not take advantage of some class features, or they'd be guilty of optimizing.

So, based on that, once you've eliminated about half of everybody's spell lists, and removed several clas features from core classes....wait a sec...shouldn't that be the DM's job? A druid would not be minmaxing to avoid taking the best options available to them that fit their concept -- they'd simply be incompetent. It's the DMs job to ensure available class options don't break the game, not the player's. It's one of the player's jobs to make as effective a character as they can. Gimping yourself intentionally is not a sign of being a good player. A player may have a reason to do it, but it's not the player's responsibility.

[Sarone]

Woah. Stop right there. You have an opinion on how the game should be played but you don't get to make blanket statements like that. No one does.

As to the level of optimizing? So a character that can beat a monster that is CR 2 above him is too powerful? Which monster and what abilities do they have? If you put a Fighter against a beast made specifically to shutdown casters, he'll laugh then impale it on a sword. Encounters should be tailored to the characters in the group.

As to using CR and ECL as measuring sticks? Hah. That's a good laugh. The CR system is woefully crappy and imbalanced. It swings the entire pendulum from under-CR'd so bad its criminal to so to overestimated that you could kill it and gain an entire level's worth of XP with no effort. I mean there have been several read through threads this month alone about books like the Monster Manual II and what monsters in it are way off from their supposed CR.

Optimization is what you do if you intend to play this game at all. You put your 18 in INT if playing a wizard. A frontline fighter gets a high CON score, etcetera. The problem I think attempting to be expressed is when it becomes unfun. If you as a player are completely replacing or making useless someone in the party, your a jerk. Optimization is not to be blamed for that as optimization is merely an idea. Your poor sense of community and sportsmanship drags things down. As well, there is a world of difference between practical and theoretical optimization. Practical is the basic stuff, take feats that actually do things to make you better, choose a good prestige class and so on. Theoretical OP is when you intentionally game the system with its shoddy rules and wordings to do things way beyond what others with decent system mastery can pull off.

*Breaks out the pulpit and choir, then comes back in a priest robe*

AMEN. PREACH THE GOOD WORD, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!

*Puts back the choir, pulpit and preist robes*

[DogbertLinc]

That's why they haven't made a good movie based on a video game yet

The tekken movie just so happens to be awesome.

@Topic, playing without optimization is not really that fun, as you're not actually competent at your intended job.

[Cracklord]

Like in OOTS, where V barred divination, its something no one that was optimizing much would do, but it does so much to keep the challenges in the story relevant. The blaster wizard is one of the least powerful, and its basically what V is, but it works well for the story and doesn't make the character suck. How could this story be told if Roy was some charging/pouncing combat monster that would have taking out Xykon in a single round of combat.
That of course doesn't mean you can't still tell a story when you're highly optimizing, but I think it does a lot to limit what you can do. How many of the challenges the OOTS faced would have been trivial or have to have been changed drastically if V could use divination?

Right. And if we were to take the caste of OoTS and put them in the Wheel of Time, how would they fare? Not all that fantastic, I'm guessing. The OoTS is at the right level of optimization for the story they are in. Which is a bit of a meaningless statement.
Conan works great in the stories he is in, but wouldn't fare so hot in Lord of the Rings, for example. Sauron makes a great badguy in Lord of the Rings, but he'd be too powerful for the characters of Shannara to even conceive of facing, and wouldn't be much more then the villain of the week in other settings. See the problem? Stories all have characters appropriate to the story. If you have more powerful characters, tell a more threatening story, and adjust the badguy to the characters.

[ImperatorK]

{{scrubbed}}

[Hiro Protagonest]

The OP and people who agree with him don't hate optimization. They hate broken overpowered builds. If I choose to play a crusader over a knight, that's optimizing. If I choose to play a d2 crusader, that's broken.

[Talvereaux]

The OP and people who agree with him don't hate optimization. They hate broken overpowered builds. If I choose to play a crusader over a knight, that's optimizing. If I choose to play a d2 crusader, that's broken.

I've never really bought into the 'anti-munchkin' stigma myself.

I'm of the opinion that munchkins are just taking the attributes of the playing medium they like the most and running with them, and that as long as their group doesn't have a problem with it, and it's within the (previously established) rules of the campaign, then creating broken builds is hunky dory. Building physical gods can be pretty fun, and it's just one of the experiences D&D has to offer.

I also believe characters should be discussed before the campaign however, and players and DMs should be frank with their intentions in advance to avoid conflicts of interest. What's most important at the end of the day is everyone enjoying the direction of the campaign, whether it's an eager minmaxing race or more subdued optimization. Apart from everyone having fun, I hate telling people the 'right' or 'wrong' way to play.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've never really bought into the 'anti-munchkin' stigma myself.

I'm of the opinion that munchkins are just taking the attributes of the playing medium they like the most and running with them, and that as long as their group doesn't have a problem with it, and it's within the (previously established) rules of the campaign, then creating broken builds is hunky dory. Building physical gods can be pretty fun, and it's just one of the experiences D&D has to offer.

I also believe characters should be discussed before the campaign however, and players and DMs should be frank with their intentions in advance to avoid conflicts of interest. What's most important at the end of the day is everyone enjoying the direction of the campaign, whether it's an eager minmaxing race or more subdued optimization. Apart from everyone having fun, I hate telling people the 'right' or 'wrong' way to play.

If you're all playing Pun-Pun, the Omniscifier, and the d2 crusader, and can kill anything that has stats, then you might as well be playing freeform, since the only things you can't steamroll through are RP situations where nothing in the mechanics works because of DM fiat.

[Kyuu Himura]

The OP and people who agree with him don't hate optimization. They hate broken overpowered builds. If I choose to play a crusader over a knight, that's optimizing. If I choose to play a d2 crusader, that's broken.

This, also, broken is not an objective word, in a manga campaign we were playing, there was this guy with the mecha. He was broken. Not breaking the universe broken, mind you, but anything that could challenge him would kill anyone else in the group in one shot, anything that was a challenge for the group just got killed in one round if they faced him, so he was breaking our game, but he would have been considered quite meh in other settings. See where I'm going??


Also, on Superman and Batman being invincible... they're not, at least Batman, mind you, he is crazy prepared, he is very freaking smart and a master martial artist, but so what?? His awesomeness didn't save poor Jason Todd, or Barbara Gordon, or Jim Gordon from the Joker, he puts the bad guys in jail, but that doesn't mean the damage isn't done.

Anyway, he kinda doesn't count, because he's a comic book character, he doesn't have am "end of the session" and he doesn't end up his "adventuring day" by beating the bad guy, he's got to deal with his personal life too...

Whatever, I kinda went off-topic, broken is bad, being good at your job is good.

[Swordguy]

Woah. Stop right there. You have an opinion on how the game should be played but you don't get to make blanket statements like that. No one does.

I do. I can take 30 seconds and do a quick phone call to this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Pickens); my uncle. Look in the cover of your 3.0 PHB. A phone call to him can and has verified that the game was designed to be played with PRECISELY the character archetypes mentioned. d20 was intended to be played in the same general style as AD&D was intended to be, with different and mathematically "cleaner" mechanics.

So yeah, that's not an "opinion". It's a verifiable fact. Deal.


As for the optimization vs min-maxing debate...the theoretical Venn Diagram of player types has a HELL of a lot more overlap between so-called "optimizers" and "min-maxers" than overlap between "min-maxers" and anybody else. Given that most min-maxers describe themselves as merely optimizing (and end up optimizing themselves so far as to force an arms race between the players to stay relevant, as well as an arms race between the GM and the problem player), to argue that min-maxers have nothing to do with optimization is disingenuous as best, and an outright lie at worst.

What the OP was trying to point out before getting shouted down by hordes of optimizers isn't that any sort of optimization is bad...he's saying both that your characters can still have specific weaknesses* AND that you don't need to optimize to the maximum degree allowed by the system. Having, for example, a 75-80% chance (instead of as close to 100% as you can mechanically get) to accomplish your "primary" schtick is JUST BLOODY FINE, and allows you to devote some of your limited character resources to rounding out your character. There's a point where you can say "my character is good enough" and leave it be, without having to devote every scrap of character-building prowess to maximizing your ability to do "X". Or to put it another way, being good at your job does not necessitate being able to do it 100% of the time. It necessitates being better at it than the average Joe, but does not need to hit perfection to be viable.

As a side note, something I like to do with "optimizers" who say that they're not trying to min-max their PCs and "just play their concept with efficiency" is to ask them for their detailed concept, and then design all the PCs myself to a reasonable power standard (ensuring nobody blows the rest of the group out of the water, mechanically). There's no harm in that, right? After all, the optimizer still gets to play their concept, and if the concept is more important than the numbers, everybody should be fine with that. How do you think YOU'D react to that?



*Weakness like having a spellbook that can be destroyed or stolen, or having a moral code you have to follow...but bring up actually taking advantage of either of those weakness on these forums, and you're a "horrible DM". If there's a weakness that never comes up, it's not a weakness. :smallamused:

[WarKitty]

Um, the fact that the game designers intended a game to be played a certain way does not actually mean that it should be played a certain way. The game should be played in whatever way makes it the most fun for everyone. With my group, that sometimes means telling one or two players to build more optimized characters so they don't drag it down for the rest of the group.

And honestly, doing things the way D&D was originally designed, with healbot clerics and blasty wizards? I'd find that a completely boring game. Not enough options to get creative with.

[Swordguy]

Um, the fact that the game designers intended a game to be played a certain way does not actually mean that it should be played a certain way. The game should be played in whatever way makes it the most fun for everyone. With my group, that sometimes means telling one or two players to build more optimized characters so they don't drag it down for the rest of the group.

And in other groups, it means telling one or two optimizers to lay off so the rest of the group can have fun without worrying about all the maths. Both points are valid.


And honestly, doing things the way D&D was originally designed, with healbot clerics and blasty wizards? I'd find that a completely boring game. Not enough options to get creative with.

Y'know, I had to play anonymous spear-carriers in 6 straight shows a few years back. 1 or 2 lines, and a bunch of fighting. That sort of thing. "Mechanically", there's nothing to differentiate them from one another. Yet people who came and saw the shows knew I wasn't playing the same guy in each show; each character was different - with a separate personality, physicality in movement and fighting, and method of speaking. It was on me as the "player" to create a new person for each of these roles; to keep it fresh and new each time. But they all fought with a short spear, dagger, and oval shield in the battle scenes, and all wore pretty much the same armor. There was nothing to differentiate them in their accoutrements or the script...nothing except for my own role-playing.

Just an anecdote. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with roleplaying games. Pay it no mind. :amused:

[Kojiro]

So yeah, that's not an "opinion". It's a verifiable fact. Deal.

Well good. You can talk about 3.0e. Wonderful. Not only does that not justify your smug attitude, though, all it does is prove that 3.0e did not do its job right, as they way its "meant" to be played is a good way to die to CR-appropriate encounters nine times out of ten. Of course, that's assuming that one person can speak for everyone involved in the design process, which they can't. And then there's AD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.5e, 4e, d20 Modern... Heck, this is in the general forum, it doesn't even have to be D&D.

So, no. It is an opinion, and a bad one at that, and all you managed to do with your anecdotal evidence was insult the company involved in 3.0e's creation by "proving" that they did not achieve what you say they meant to do, by any measure.

[Swordguy]

So, no. It is an opinion, and a bad one at that, and all you managed to do with your anecdotal evidence was insult the company involved in 3.0e's creation by "proving" that they did not achieve what you say they meant to do, by any measure.

It applies to all of d20, not just 3.0, since the d20 system is at its heart an attempt to clean up the ugly math issues from AD&D. Secondarily, the game absolutely works if you play it in that manner. You'll note the game doesn't really break itself until you start throwing around the stuff that wasn't intended by the design team. A modicum of critical thinking would show that they did, in fact, achieve what they set out to do...the fact that they didn't achieve a balanced secondary but more popular game that they never intended to design in the first place (batman wizards, tippyverse, etc) doesn't reflect badly on the company at all. You may was well blame Xerox for their failure to produce quality toasters.

And if you're going to attack my quality of evidence, well, you're on the internet. By that standard, NOTHING can be proved, and EVERYTHING is opinion, since anybody can type and/or photoshop anything. You'll just have to either take it on faith, or not. Any evidence I could possibly electronically provide can be faked, so you'll just have to deal, or not.

[Kojiro]

It applies to all of d20, not just 3.0, since the d20 system is at its heart an attempt to clean up the ugly math issues from AD&D. Secondarily, the game absolutely works if you play it in that manner. You'll note the game doesn't really break itself until you start throwing around the stuff that wasn't intended by the design team. A modicum of critical thinking would show that they did, in fact, achieve what they set out to do...the fact that they didn't achieve a balanced secondary but more popular game that they never intended to design in the first place (batman wizards, tippyverse, etc) doesn't reflect badly on the company at all. You may was well blame Xerox for their failure to produce quality toasters.

And if you're going to attack my quality of evidence, well, you're on the internet. By that standard, NOTHING can be proved, and EVERYTHING is opinion, since anybody can type and/or photoshop anything. You'll just have to either take it on faith, or not. Any evidence I could possibly electronically provide can be faked, so you'll just have to deal, or not.

You've moved from "I'm objectively right" to "well, you can't prove me wrong, so ha". You've already admitted defeat with that alone; that you had to qualify and rephrase pretty much everything from your original argument only adds to that. Give it up. You are, in strict and objective sense, wrong.

[Tavar]

Except, to carry the analogy further, I would blame Xerox if they had a slot labeled Toast on their machine.

[Swordguy]

You've moved from "I'm objectively right" to "well, you can't prove me wrong, so ha". You've already admitted defeat with that alone; that you had to qualify and rephrase pretty much everything from your original argument only adds to that. Give it up. You are, in strict and objective sense, wrong.

{{Scrubbed}}

[WarKitty]

And in other groups, it means telling one or two optimizers to lay off so the rest of the group can have fun without worrying about all the maths. Both points are valid.

...which is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier

Anyway, I don't see anyone in this thread who has said that it can't be taken too far. What we're objecting to is the false conflation of "optimization" with "not having any weaknesses" and "trying to have the best character ever."


Y'know, I had to play anonymous spear-carriers in 6 straight shows a few years back. 1 or 2 lines, and a bunch of fighting. That sort of thing. "Mechanically", there's nothing to differentiate them from one another. Yet people who came and saw the shows knew I wasn't playing the same guy in each show; each character was different - with a separate personality, physicality in movement and fighting, and method of speaking. It was on me as the "player" to create a new person for each of these roles; to keep it fresh and new each time. But they all fought with a short spear, dagger, and oval shield in the battle scenes, and all wore pretty much the same armor. There was nothing to differentiate them in their accoutrements or the script...nothing except for my own role-playing.

Just an anecdote. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with roleplaying games. Pay it no mind. :amused:

That doesn't necessarily mean all of us want to play that. What I see happening is more akin to showing up to play a spear-carrier and being told you're going to be playing the drummer instead, whether that's what you want or not.

[Swordguy]

What we're objecting to is the false conflation of "optimization" with "not having any weaknesses" and "trying to have the best character ever."

Yay, reasoned debate!

See, I don't see where anybody, even the OP, said that. There's a strong correlation between people who optimize and people who want characters "without any weakness" or the "best character ever" (as I mentioned), but it's not automatic. It can be a strong enough correlation that, for a given local metagame, "optimization" may as well be "min-maxing" (which it is around here, and I suspect around the OP).




...which is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier

How so? I don't see how the statement that "you don't have to optimize to the limits of the system" and "some groups need the optimization level increased for a better shared experience, while some need it reduced" are contradictory. They're separate statements.

[WarKitty]

You can't say both that there's a way the game should be played and then say that it only works for some groups.

[Swordguy]

You can't say both that there's a way the game should be played and then say that it only works for some groups.

I said there was a way the game should be played if you cared about how it was intended to be played and don't want the game to break. That's a Very Important Difference. There's a way a game like Legend of the Five Rings or 7th Sea is intended to be played too, and it CERTAINLY doesn't work for some groups.

The difference is that people who don't mesh with the way L5R or 7th Sea are intended to be played don't blame the system. They accept that their preferred playstyle may break the system and either find another game to play or play in the way they prefer with a special eye toward fitting in with the intent behind the system (a sort of "compromise" in playstyle). I have NEVER seen or heard of a group complaining that 7th Sea or L5R are designed badly and fail as a game because a player or players prefer a different playstyle than the one intended. I don't know why this is so endemic to D&D.

[WarKitty]

I said there was a way the game should be played if you cared about how it was intended to be played and don't want the game to break. That's a Very Important Difference. There's a way a game like Legend of the Five Rings or 7th Sea is intended to be played too, and it CERTAINLY doesn't work for some groups.

The difference is that people who don't mesh with the way L5R or 7th Sea are intended to be played don't blame the system. They accept that their preferred playstyle may break the system and either find another game to play or play in the way they prefer with a special eye toward fitting in with the intent behind the system (a sort of "compromise" in playstyle). I have NEVER seen or heard of a group complaining that 7th Sea or L5R are designed badly and fail as a game because a player or players prefer a different playstyle than the one intended. I don't know why this is so endemic to D&D.

Because judging from the diverse set of books that is 3.5, there is no one set standard for "how the game was meant to be played." It looks more like there are a bunch of different intents coming from the variety of designers. Not to mention that the game at least on the surface presents itself as one supporting these different varieties, rather than being confined to the one idea. And even playing close to as written it can be quite easy to break the game.

[ryu]

Also they accomplished their goal as intended did they? Really now? Okay run the standard, stereotypical, bland, and simple party through encounters of ''appropriate'' cr given in the same books. Do this repeatedly with no dm fiat, RAW is the last word (and I do mean LAST word) and come back with the results. If they really did make their perfect game as intended this won't be a terrible meat grinder session where everyone dies every other encounter past level fifteen. The system as written isn't horribly unbalanced or anything...:smallamused:

Until you do that I would recommend you drop the smug attitude and fallacious arguments from authority. I sincerely doubt I'm the only one annoyed by them.

[Jerthanis]

I don't think physical weaknesses are necessarily more interesting than other types of weaknesses. In fact, I'd say Superman and Kryptonite is an example of how physical weaknesses are far LESS interesting than any other weakness which can be exploited. In one of the greatest Superman stories I've read, Lex Luthor creates a superheroine who is secretly a robot, backs her with a massive PR campaign centered around her likable, relatable personality and (supposed) humble human origins in order to shape a wedge against Superman's alien heritage and godlike demeanor. Then Luthor detonated her self-destruct while Superman was fighting her, making it appear he has killed her. The whole story was about undermining trust people have in Superman, and was about his image and had nothing to do with physically overcoming Superman.

For me, this is far more interesting than if there were a story about Batman doing nothing but fighting people with guns, because even though Batman technically could be killed by a gun (though he never would), the story is far less nuanced.

It really seems like your problem comes down to facing level 14 monsters at level 11... but these numbers are arbitrary, and were selected merely as a guideline for what you're expected to be capable of. Quite a few threads are about how worthless the guideline is in the first place... both toward enemies being labeled as stronger OR weaker than they really are in practice. So there are some enemies you're "supposed" to fight at level 14 which will be beatable by the "non-optimized" party at level 14, but other level 14 monsters will need that same "non-optimized" party to be level 18 to beat...

My own biggest problem with optimization essentially comes down to the effect it can have on intraparty relationships. Within a party, rivalries can develop or people can end up not seeing eye to eye on a lot of subjects. This can make the group interesting to roleplay, but when one PC is vastly superior to another in such a relationship, it can quickly lead to in-character bullying or other damaging activity.

Optimization is like Nuclear deterrence... it works fine if everyone has it around the same level, but it will really strongly affect the attitudes and overall importance of the excluded parties if not everyone has it, and when one tries to out-gun the other, it can cause an arms race and the issue can only escalate.

[ryu]

And that's only fun in a campaign where characters are supposed to have meta knowledge. It's just hilarious to see.

[Lord Raziere]

{{scrubbed}}

When I think of either, I think "Extremism."

[navar100]

My own biggest problem with optimization essentially comes down to the effect it can have on intraparty relationships. Within a party, rivalries can develop or people can end up not seeing eye to eye on a lot of subjects. This can make the group interesting to roleplay, but when one PC is vastly superior to another in such a relationship, it can quickly lead to in-character bullying or other damaging activity.

Optimization is like Nuclear deterrence... it works fine if everyone has it around the same level, but it will really strongly affect the attitudes and overall importance of the excluded parties if not everyone has it, and when one tries to out-gun the other, it can cause an arms race and the issue can only escalate.

When I joined my group 10 years ago, I knew the game. The players didn't. I optimized. The players didn't. What happened? The players were impressed with what my character could do. They asked me how to improve their characters. I taught them tactics. I recommended feats. I recommended spells. This continued for each campaign. As the levels progressed I would be asked less. We're now in our group's 4th campaign. They do not need my help anymore. They could never make Pun-Pun, but they can certainly keep up with me. They are very much happy about it.

[Erloas]

Trying to make the plot of a D&D campaign told in the same way of a more established narrative is often mutually exclusive with allowing your players to play the game as they please, as such, D&D campaigns are not run the same way as a good novel or comic. No use in trying to have your cake and eat it.

If I'm not mistaken, some, if not all, of the Dragon Lance books where written as fairly direct copies of events from a game they were playing in.

I think its possible, and very like, to use many of the same sort of plots for games and stories. Its just that the games can go on a lot more tangents (or at lot less if you compare it to Gorge RR Martin's books where his trilogy is said to run at least 7 books and many people don't think hes going to hit that).

I think it comes down to a matter of time mostly. You can tell the same stories, but whether its a "mini series" in length or a "one-shot episode" mostly comes down to how quickly the problems can be solved. You can tell the story of the Hobbit as a full book where the town needs saving from a dragon and it takes a lot of work and a lot of luck to get it done, or it can be a 9 panel strip where a wizard blasts a dragon to death without even trying. I know which one I think is more interesting, even if, as is the case in both of these examples, the story keeps going long after that.


As for the Superman and Batman stuff, I'm sure they've had some better stuff written for them, they wouldn't have been around 50+ years otherwise. However I admit that I don't know the vast majority of it because the characters where never that appealing to me in the settings I did see them in. And it sounds like in many cases it reinforces what I said though. The best Superman stories seem to be ones where he is facing things stronger/better then himself, where he actually has weaknesses. What it also means is that the only things that do seem to challenge him are not of this world or at very least extremely rare exceptions. There is so many stories that can't be told with Superman because they would be no challenge to him.


As for the CR being messed up, well that is probably true. But I think the majority of it is mostly right. You shouldn't try to define a system by its exceptions. Of course I know I'm talking about the exceptions in the system here too, but the difference seems to be the exceptions that lead to character power are embraced here, where as the exceptions in the CR are berated as an example of how they didn't know what they were doing.

The "tier system" is designed to tell you that a tier 1 character is going to overshadow a t4 character and there is almost nothing that can be done about that. However if a player's character design fits into one of those t5 classes they are SOL if someone else wants to play an optimized T2 class. And its not possible to build that T4 class to be a T2/3 class, it is however possible to build that T2 class as a T3 or T4 class.

[huttj509]

You can tell the story of the Hobbit as a full book where the town needs saving from a dragon and it takes a lot of work and a lot of luck to get it done,

And the guy who saves the day was a bard, A BARD!

Wait, he wasn't a bard, that was just his nam...

Never mind.


More on topic, I think a lot of the vitriol is based on the first impression, in that the title states a problem with optimization, and the first post is completely about having zero weaknesses or need for anyone else in the group.

Unfortunately, there's not really a standard (or even board-standard) "scale of optimization." So the word "optimizer" can be taken to mean anything from someone who puts a high stat in their prime attribute, or puts 3-4 ranks in their gun skill if they plan to use guns, all the way to the guy whose turn involves picking a target, and rolling a double handful of dice just to determine how VERY dead the target is, while also hacking the gibson, and convincing the Johnson that 50% up front isn't enough, it should really be 100%, with a 50% bonus for being so charming.

And yes, I did attempt to mix systems a bit there to convey the point without getting too much into system-specifics on what's considered cheese.


Can character optimization go too far? Yup, I don't think there's many who consider top end rule exploiting theoretical level to be just fine in all situations.

Do different groups have valid differences of opinion on where the "proper" level is? Yup, and it can even change within the same group from campaign to campaign, maybe they decide to go for a group of schrodinger's wizards one time, and a group of straight fighters another.

Can overly weak characters be as bad as overly strong ones? Yup. The issue is not so much the outright ability, but the breaking of the implied social contract involved in gameplay. "Anything I can do you can do better." "You're not pulling your weight." "It's another single goblin with a dull stick (or an int 22 dragon played like an idiot) because that's the only thing that won't kill you guys outright (chance of death, generally good, flat out "you die, no save, no sr, no chance to escape, no way to see it coming" is not)."

The assumed power level/chance of death through agencies other than player stupidity/balance of "kick in the door" to "I think there was an attack roll made 3 months ago" playstyle...these are things that should be explicitly discussed among the play group.

[Talvereaux]

If I'm not mistaken, some, if not all, of the Dragon Lance books where written as fairly direct copies of events from a game they were playing in.

I suppose this is where opinions come in, but I would not cite the Dragonlance books as good literature.


The "tier system" is designed to tell you that a tier 1 character is going to overshadow a t4 character and there is almost nothing that can be done about that. However if a player's character design fits into one of those t5 classes they are SOL if someone else wants to play an optimized T2 class. And its not possible to build that T4 class to be a T2/3 class, it is however possible to build that T2 class as a T3 or T4 class.

Let's be fair. The tier system makes it a lot easier for DMs to create house and campaign rules to resolve balance issues. It also makes it a lot more easier for a campaign to communicate on what kind of group dynamic they want to go for, and makes it easier for people to understand what they're getting in to if they end up running an outlier class.

You could choose to paint it in the most negative possible light, but it's potentially a very useful tool for sealing the gap in your party's would-be balance issues.

[Cracklord]

As for the Superman and Batman stuff, I'm sure they've had some better stuff written for them, they wouldn't have been around 50+ years otherwise. However I admit that I don't know the vast majority of it because the characters where never that appealing to me in the settings I did see them in. And it sounds like in many cases it reinforces what I said though. The best Superman stories seem to be ones where he is facing things stronger/better then himself, where he actually has weaknesses. What it also means is that the only things that do seem to challenge him are not of this world or at very least extremely rare exceptions. There is so many stories that can't be told with Superman because they would be no challenge to him.

And if they were, the best Superman stories never would have been told about him, because they'd be too much for him to deal with. You couldn't tell Superman's best stories about an ordinary guy, because the problems that he faces are on another tier. And the best superman stories run with that. Rather then try to show him worrying about ordinary things, the play up his power. Because those stories are apropriate to Superman.

Lets say I want to play the Tomb of Horrors. Gary Gygax wrote it, it's well loved and well played, and even munchkin builds routinely get destroyed trying it. If you want to play that, you'd better optimize, or you won't have a chance. Now you're new, optomized character won't be able to play the story of 'resucue the halfling princess from the evil kobolds', because it's not appropriate to this sort of character. However, the character who is appropriate to that challenge should stay well away from the Tomb of Horrors.


If I'm not mistaken, some, if not all, of the Dragon Lance books where written as fairly direct copies of events from a game they were playing in.

Yes, the first two were. That series didn't get good until the Twins trilogy.
Also, you might have noticed Raistlin is a lot more powerful and capable then the rest of the characters, and Flint spends the time being a grumbling dead weight. Almost like Raistlin's (gasp) optimized.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I would think that this "average" sort of optimization level would be able to handle incorporeal opponents and magic wielding opponents, but they aren't going to be the sort that is going to take a CR appropriate dragon out in 2 rounds of combat.

You realise level appropriate encounters are supposed to be easy, and that the only reason a level-appropraite dragon wouldn't be taken down in about two rounds is because True Dragons are under CR'd, right?

In any case, how optimised a character should be depends on the group, as well as the definition of "optimised" (which can even vary from person to person, as we've seen and suffered from here - personally I'd consider anything that helps to model your concept better or increase the character's power optimisation, with it being a scale rather than a label). One group might find having an 18 in your class' primary stat overpowered, others might laugh at a d2 Crusader for having to get close enough for the inital attack. And that's perfectly fine, so long as both groups know that they have different standards for balance. If someone comes into a group who optimises less than them, they should probably be willing to tone it down (or teach the others to optimise) if asked. Equally, someone coming into a group more optimised than them should be prepared to optimise more if asked. If they are not, then they shouldn't expect to be invited to play - it's disruptive behaviour, in either case.

Ultimately, the game should be fun for those involved.

[Partysan]

As a side note, something I like to do with "optimizers" who say that they're not trying to min-max their PCs and "just play their concept with efficiency" is to ask them for their detailed concept, and then design all the PCs myself to a reasonable power standard (ensuring nobody blows the rest of the group out of the water, mechanically). There's no harm in that, right? After all, the optimizer still gets to play their concept, and if the concept is more important than the numbers, everybody should be fine with that. How do you think YOU'D react to that?

You know, if I can have a look at it and talk it over with you if I think something isn't well represented and we come to an agreement, then we can do that no problem.
The bigger problem with that is that character building is a game on it's own, and you'd take that fun away from me. And talking about D&D3.X the building is arguably more fun than the playing.

[Jerthanis]

When I joined my group 10 years ago, I knew the game. The players didn't. I optimized. The players didn't. What happened? The players were impressed with what my character could do. They asked me how to improve their characters. I taught them tactics. I recommended feats. I recommended spells. This continued for each campaign. As the levels progressed I would be asked less. We're now in our group's 4th campaign. They do not need my help anymore. They could never make Pun-Pun, but they can certainly keep up with me. They are very much happy about it.

Ah, well, if we're allowed anecdotal evidence: One player of ours has zero interest in mechanics whatsoever, of any system. As such, he has other people design his characters for him, and the player most interested in system mastery is the designer behind most of his characters. In one particular game, while playing a Clericzilla, he decided a certain prisoner deserved to have her hands smashed to uselessness as the just punishment for having used magic to try and escape (and to kill someone). When the Paladin said that doing so would be going too far, the Cleric refused to back down. The Paladin, knowing she couldn't defeat the Cleric who had more HP, more AC, with greater total bonuses to attack and damage, was the one who was forced to back down. When the punishments grew more extensive as the cleric realized some spells lacked somatic components, the deterrence remained and the Paladin still could not act.

So now, when designing the character for this player, we must be careful not to make him a character which can defeat all or most of the rest of the party, because if we disagree with him, he might not back down. IF he made his own characters, then we'd know the rest of us would each have to pay attention to his mechanics and make sure we'd stand even odds against him. Not because we expect him to do that kind of thing again, but because the one time was enough that it's not something we're going to forget.

Also, if a teleporting Wizard is the primary means of getting the party around, then the Wizard's opinion on where the ship is going holds more weight than otherwise, since it's an incomparably fast and efficient means of getting anywhere which is solely at the command of the wizard himself. I think it's safe to say that while many adventuring groups have nods to democracy, they have politics under the surface very much influenced by merit. If Angel Summoner has a plan, BMX Bandit doesn't have much veto power. That's the largest conflict I see arising from unbalanced optimization... that increased capabilities relative to the rest of the group carry with them greater influence over the story and party dynamic.



As for the Superman and Batman stuff, I'm sure they've had some better stuff written for them, they wouldn't have been around 50+ years otherwise. However I admit that I don't know the vast majority of it because the characters where never that appealing to me in the settings I did see them in. And it sounds like in many cases it reinforces what I said though. The best Superman stories seem to be ones where he is facing things stronger/better then himself, where he actually has weaknesses. What it also means is that the only things that do seem to challenge him are not of this world or at very least extremely rare exceptions. There is so many stories that can't be told with Superman because they would be no challenge to him.

I think you are mistaken and I don't want to belabor the point, but no, Superman's physical weaknesses or possessing a likelyhood of being overcome and injured or killed aren't automatically more interesting than otherwise.

I own the Superman Movie Collection, which includes all four Christopher Reeves' Superman movies, as well as one starring George Reeves, called Superman and the Mole People. In each Christopher Reeves Superman movie, he faces something which is potentially fatal to him. In Superman and the Mole People, his main antagonist is a man with an ordinary gun. A gun which is repeatedly shown to be harmless to Superman. However, Superman and the Mole People is a FAR better story than ANY of the Christopher Reeves Superman movies because it was about discovering and understanding what was going on, learning the mystery of a missing girl, communicating with both the alien culture of the Mole people, and with the angry and fearful people who thought the Mole people were a threat. It had a better story even though no avenue of the story would have led to Superman himself coming to harm. Just like no avenue of the story of 12 Angry Men was going to lead Henry Fonda to death, nor would Say Anything have led John Cusack to grievous injury. Replace either Juror 8 or Lloyd Dobbler with Clark Kent and the story is largely the same, or at least is not changed by his bulletproof skin but by other aspects of his personality.

I'm just trying to establish that operating under serious threat of being subjected to major physical trauma is not a requirement for drama, and so being very powerful on its own doesn't mean a story grows less interesting.

[SITB]

... BMX Bandit doesn't have much veto power. That's the largest conflict I see arising from unbalanced optimization... that increased capabilities relative to the rest of the group carry with them greater influence over the story and party dynamic.


But isn't that a problem intrinsic to D&D rather than players? Not all options are equal, and some options are far more useful than others, for instance, a Wizard levels up and gets Teleport while a Fighter levels up and gets Weapon Specialization.

[Corolinth]

{{scrubbed}}

[Partysan]

{{scrubbed}}

[The Glyphstone]

Flaming
...
*Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently.

Great Modthulhu: Tread carefully, please, all. A sensitive subject, and this thread has already gone borderline in a few places.

[Erloas]

I suppose this is where opinions come in, but I would not cite the Dragonlance books as good literature.
I didn't mean to say they were amazing books, but they were ok, and a lot of people do seem to like them.

Yes, the first two were. That series didn't get good until the Twins trilogy.
Also, you might have noticed Raistlin is a lot more powerful and capable then the rest of the characters, and Flint spends the time being a grumbling dead weight. Almost like Raistlin's (gasp) optimized.
Raistlin spent a lot of time not being more powerful then everyone else too though. He also had a lot of limitations that made him highly dependent on the rest of the group in order to survive. His weaknesses where a huge part of his character and where he ended up. Even if he did end up being equivalent to the gods in power, so much of what he did to get to that point was directly tied to those first weaknesses. Some where clearly entirely roleplaying type weaknesses but others were (or would have been had it not been a story) mechanical weaknesses.




You could choose to paint [the tier system] in the most negative possible light, but it's potentially a very useful tool for sealing the gap in your party's would-be balance issues.
I agree with you, it is simply a method of portraying power, and not any actual affect on the game. The point mostly was that highly optimized its only about 3-4 classes that hit those top tiers, and if someone picks one of those classes and optimizes it then that greatly limits what options the other members of the party have to choose from if they want to be relevant in the game as well.


However, Superman and the Mole People is a FAR better story than ANY of the Christopher Reeves Superman movies because it was about discovering and understanding what was going on, learning the mystery of a missing girl, communicating with both the alien culture of the Mole people, and with the angry and fearful people who thought the Mole people were a threat.
I don't think someone has to be under the threat of death to make a good story. However if you are going to make a story about people fighting, then there had better be some chance of him loosing that fight. In the Matrix for example, there is only a story so long as Neo hasn't learned how the Matrix is no threat to him, once he gets to that point in power the movie is over because there is no challenge left.
And I haven't watched that Superman movie. It does however go along with what I was saying. In that case the challenges Superman faced where ones where he was weakest, where he didn't have all the answers to fix it without trying. From the sounds of it, not having watched the movie, its also a story that would have been just as good with almost any other lead character, the fact that it was Superman isn't really important to the story. If it were a game that would have been almost entirely a non-mechanical sort of challenge, or at very least a mechanical challenge he wasn't optimized for. And if he had some super power to be able to get people to believe what he says and magically read their thoughts there probably wouldn't have been much of anything for a story either.

Which, going back to the Tier system, is the problem with Tier 1-2 builds. By definition they have the tools to handle any situation they come up against. How do you challenge a group of 4 of them when there is nothing at all you can throw at them that they don't have all of the tools required to deal with, and with redundancy.

[Prime32]

Which, going back to the Tier system, is the problem with Tier 1-2 builds. By definition they have the tools to handle any situation they come up against. How do you challenge a group of 4 of them when there is nothing at all you can throw at them that they don't have all of the tools required to deal with, and with redundancy.You use Tier 1-2 enemies.

Teleport to the red dragon's lair? Sorry, but dragons are spellcasters too, and he's cast anticipate teleportation and similar spells so that you arrive in a deathtrap. Shimmering scales protects him from shivering touch, Mindsight stops you from sneaking up on him even if you're silenced and invisible, and Flyby Attack lets him retreat into a pool of lava between attacks. A contingent telekinesis spell hurls any Orb of Dragonkind brought near him into the lava. A magic item protects him from dispelling. If anyone attempts to scry him, he blocks it and then scries them. His real lair is a second chamber warded from divinations, with a false chamber inhabited by a simulacrum of himself and cursed items.

Frankly, a creature that's supposed to be highly intelligent, paranoid and wealthy not taking those kinds of measures seems weird.

[Erloas]

You use Tier 1-2 enemies.
How many different options do you have though? Most T1-2 enemies are going to be spell casters, and they are going to need to use many of the same spells to protect themselves. How much variation can you give them?

Can you challenge them much with large groups of lower level enemies or are they all going to die to AE spells in 1, maybe 2 rounds. Can you challenge them with traps? Can you have a puzzle on a door for them to work through when they can just pass through or teleport past it? Can you challenge them with social problems when they can mind control their way through almost all of it? What about a martial based big bad monster?

[ryu]

Yes you can challenge them with all those things and I'll tell you how. High power pcs? High powered world. You want to dominate person the two hundred year old elf to take the most powerful stuff from the magic shop? Oh we're sorry it turns out he worked very hard to get where he is and literally crafted every item himself. *Insert semi instant spell death here.* Yeah turns out I tailor my worlds to the players. No you aren't bullying important npcs or trivializing encounters. Why? What isn't as powerful as you is peasants and they still have monk levels rather than commoner levels.

[Snails]

The problem is not optimization itself, but significantly different degrees in optimization within a group. Even that is not necessarily a problem, although it easily can be.

Everyone super minmaxed (or the opposite) is not a problem for a DM when every PC in the party is comparably competent (or comparably incompetent).

If two new players come into a campaign and both say "I want to play a knight in shining armor" is it really a wonderful thing if one player pores through 13 books to build a PC that is mechanically hugely better at everything than the other.

I say no.

I know that to some degree of such advantage is inevitable. It is a question of how much is too much in the context of a particular group.

I would also note that some players are simply going to be tactically more skilled than others. Attentiveness at the gaming table is not something that can or should be discouraged.

The issue is how much to reward extreme attentiveness that occurs away from gaming table. As I already said, the reward is inevitably going to be more than zero. However the reward does not have to be huge either.

[nyarlathotep]

The problem is not optimization itself, but significantly different degrees in optimization within a group. Even that is not necessarily a problem, although it easily can be.

Everyone super minmaxed (or the opposite) is not a problem for a DM when every PC in the party is comparably competent (or comparably incompetent).

If two new players come into a campaign and both say "I want to play a knight in shining armor" is it really a wonderful thing if one player pores through 13 books to build a PC that is mechanically hugely better at everything than the other.

I say no.

I know that to some degree of such advantage is inevitable. It is a question of how much is too much in the context of a particular group.

I would also note that some players are simply going to be tactically more skilled than others. Attentiveness at the gaming table is not something that can or should be discouraged.

The issue is how much to reward extreme attentiveness that occurs away from gaming table. As I already said, the reward is inevitably going to be more than zero. However the reward does not have to be huge either.

The issue is the difference in skill level of the players, just like if one person wants to be the suave party face, but the barbarian's player has such a dominating personality he never gets to talk.

[Werekat]

Erloas makes an interesting point. Can we get some input from those who routinely run high-power games on how much variety they've been able to challenge their players with?

When our group looks for variety we just change game systems, so we never end up being too optimized (if you have to learn a system each time, you won't have time to master it).

But when we do optimize for fun, our deathmatches turn into initiative matches, at least in any given arena. I wonder if there's a tendency towards the same in longer games. So if anyone has any experience on the matter, I'd be interested.

As for my own two cents: I like optimizing, but a) I'm not too good at it, b) I prefer to optimize within heavy in-world restrictions, as in having very limited resources and using them within a given situation. I like a game where the acquisition of resources is part of the game, not a game where all possible resources in the books are at your fingertips. My characters are usually unoptimized to a degree because they don't know the variant might exist, and are often pressed for time, having to make do with the resources they have rather than seek out a metagame-optimized solution.

[nyarlathotep]

Erloas makes an interesting point. Can we get some input from those who routinely run high-power games on how much variety they've been able to challenge their players with?

When our group looks for variety we just change game systems, so we never end up being too optimized (if you have to learn a system each time, you won't have time to master it).

But when we do optimize for fun, our deathmatches turn into initiative matches, at least in any given arena. I wonder if there's a tendency towards the same in longer games. So if anyone has any experience on the matter, I'd be interested.

As for my own two cents: I like optimizing, but a) I'm not too good at it, b) I prefer to optimize within heavy in-world restrictions, as in having very limited resources and using them within a given situation. I like a game where the acquisition of resources is part of the game, not a game where all possible resources in the books are at your fingertips. My characters are usually unoptimized to a degree because they don't know the variant might exist, and are often pressed for time, having to make do with the resources they have rather than seek out a metagame-optimized solution.

I've been playing an investigative pathfinder/3.5 game and I mainly challenge my players by simply having the enemies play smart. Take for instance one encounter where a verminlord (class not monster) had taken over a mansion and once the PCs arrived teleported to the basement. Down there he had three things at his disposal: his vermin companions (termite swarm, giant camel spider, and a giant regular spider), his spells (mostly expended before the PCs showed up), and prep time. So he had his termites chew through all but a very thin layer of wall and positioned the camel spider just behind it and sent the web spider out a secret cellar entrance to circle around the PCs and web up the top of the stairs after they used them.

Then the termites (having tremorsense) waited until the PCs were just on the other side of the wall before breaking down the wall, allowing the camel spider to full attack the magus with power attack dropping him to negatives. The party proceed grab his body and run back up the stairs, which in turn got them webbed up and attack a few more times by the camel spider. The party then naturally retreated to the roof, which the verminlord countered by flying and having his termites start chewing the support beams.

The party ultimately survived thanks to two of their members who had gone to stop a dragon-kidnapping returning early and catching the enemy by surprise. End result however was a party of six level 7s with fairly good optimization nearly losing to a level 9 druid/verminlord and his companions rated at CRs 5,6, and 3.

Admittedly my party is not a group of optimized tier 1s. They were a witch (tier 1), magus (3), dread necromancer (3), rogue (4), ninja (pathfinder placetest not sure), and a pathfinder samurai (5). They were optimized for character concept, because that's what real optimizers do.

[icefractal]

Yes you can challenge them with all those things and I'll tell you how. High power pcs? High powered world. You want to dominate person the two hundred year old elf to take the most powerful stuff from the magic shop? Oh we're sorry it turns out he worked very hard to get where he is and literally crafted every item himself. *Insert semi instant spell death here.* Yeah turns out I tailor my worlds to the players. No you aren't bullying important npcs or trivializing encounters. Why? What isn't as powerful as you is peasants and they still have monk levels rather than commoner levels.Honestly, that doesn't sound like a great solution - it reminds me too much of CRPGs where shopkeepers and "plot" NPCs are mysteriously invincible. And really, every peasant has monk levels? You realize that whether the PCs optimize or not, they will be trivially defeating peasants by early mid-levels or before, right? And that's how it should be - a so-called dragon slayer who can't handle a bar fight just seems incongruent.

Now OTOH, it's true that it doesn't make sense for a shopkeeper to have tons of potent items sitting around, with no good way to protect them. For which reason, magic "shops" IMC usually fall into the following categories:
1) Mage, who will craft items to order; has only cheap stuff sitting around.
2) Craftsman for a powerful guild or army, only makes stuff within the ability of that group to defend.
3) Member of trading syndicate, does not have items personally but can procure them via teleportation network.

But ultra-powerful shopkeepers ... maybe one - maybe. They strain suspension of disbelief. When the kingdom was under threat, why didn't this Elf blast the attackers to cinders? How is it that nobody mentions the archmage living down the street? Why does someone that powerful want your measly gold anyway, when they could take a trip to the Plane of Earth and collect diamonds? It usually feel artificial.

[Yukitsu]

Yes you can challenge them with all those things and I'll tell you how. High power pcs? High powered world. You want to dominate person the two hundred year old elf to take the most powerful stuff from the magic shop? Oh we're sorry it turns out he worked very hard to get where he is and literally crafted every item himself. *Insert semi instant spell death here.* Yeah turns out I tailor my worlds to the players. No you aren't bullying important npcs or trivializing encounters. Why? What isn't as powerful as you is peasants and they still have monk levels rather than commoner levels.

Why are they adventuring again, when every random dude is apparantly more competent at it than they are? I generally just say "well, if these guys are all better than us by this ridiculous margin, we may as well just retire, and if they can't save the world it's really their own damn fault." when the DM tries to pull that. It breaks versimillitude, smacks of the DM wanting his world at status quo over player enjoyment and I find is often tied to railroading. Just let the freaking peasant get crushed, it doesn't matter.

[ryu]

I didn't say everyone was better. I simply said the world was recieving a proportionate power increase equal roughly to the optimization power increase. Peasants still die easily because well they're monks. As for why adventure most of the people around are in fact adventurers and it's a less rare thing. Doesn't mean you won't be facing a nasty villain at all. It's just that everyone is doing it just to survive. As for suspension of disbelief if the wizard can cast three buffs and easily beat down a giant from the monster manual with his bare hands we're long past that. Essentially the world feels less like single big conflict and more there are many conflicts going on. Some too small for you to care. Some too big for you to deal with. Some that you should probably get to work on.

You want a game to be all power acquisition? Okay I make a world where that's actually a sensible motive.

[nyarlathotep]

Why are they adventuring again, when every random dude is apparantly more competent at it than they are? I generally just say "well, if these guys are all better than us by this ridiculous margin, we may as well just retire, and if they can't save the world it's really their own damn fault." when the DM tries to pull that. It breaks versimillitude, smacks of the DM wanting his world at status quo over player enjoyment and I find is often tied to railroading. Just let the freaking peasant get crushed, it doesn't matter.

That problem applies in most sorts of games though. If you're unoptimized and thus barely able to do your job, why have you been chosen to save the world. When the one ring needed to be destroyed each nation of good sent their best not some random idjits that happened to wander by.

That being said I usually find DMs who insist on core-only, or talk about how much more "roleplaying than rollplaying" focused they are usually tend to be the ones with the most over the top NPCs. Usually the best roleplaying is done when the group as a whole as a come interest in an intriguing setting and characters. The rules and how they are implemented optimized or unoptimized only have an effect on the game as far as people enjoy them having an effect on the game. Thus most DMs that try to make a point about it who try to force that which can only come naturally, if fun is to be had, tend to be bad DMs with control issues, people who want to tell a story rather than run a game.

In short the guy who plays a triple amputee with no magical abilities because "it makes for better roleplaying" is just as bad as the guy who tries to actually use infinite combo tricks in game, and the DM who tries to force his players into either role is worse than both.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why are they adventuring again, when every random dude is apparantly more competent at it than they are? I generally just say "well, if these guys are all better than us by this ridiculous margin, we may as well just retire, and if they can't save the world it's really their own damn fault." when the DM tries to pull that. It breaks versimillitude, smacks of the DM wanting his world at status quo over player enjoyment and I find is often tied to railroading. Just let the freaking peasant get crushed, it doesn't matter.

So, the people who stock expensive magic items should be low-level NPCs? Seriously, by the rules, there's always gonna be mid- to high-level NPCs in the place where you can buy a +3 sword (a metropolis).

[ImperatorK]

{Scrubbed}

Okay, more on topic then.
My problem with optimization is that it's necessary to make the most of the game.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd like to point out that munchkining is something completely different from optimization or powergaming (those two terms mean pretty much the same in my book), and refers to a playstyle where the player doesn't care about the story, character interaction or challenges, and just wants to amass as much treasure, XP, magic items, power and "points" in general as possible. It has nothing to do with character building, and in fact munchkins tend to often have very straightforward builds, going for what is beefiest and feels most powerful, without necessarily being most powerful.

[nyarlathotep]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If you think something is inflammatory report it.

[Erloas]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}A thread is really not the place for that sort of thing. If you have a problem with the post just report it. Its also worth noting that no one else can see infractions/warnings and there is no way to know if someone else got one unless it was bad enough that the mods felt it warranted editing out the post themselves.


So, the people who stock expensive magic items should be low-level NPCs? Seriously, by the rules, there's always gonna be mid- to high-level NPCs in the place where you can buy a +3 sword (a metropolis).
I think it makes sense to have higher level NPCs in shops like that, as well as them having bodyguards to protect the shop, they should have the money after all.
But there are a lot of other situations where a bit of mind control could completely trivialize a non-combat challenge and it would be against friendly or neutral NPCs that, while maybe being in positions of power or simply having collected a lot of information, wouldn't logically have a lot of class levels or ways of protecting themselves from that sort of thing.

[Sucrose]

How many different options do you have though? Most T1-2 enemies are going to be spell casters, and they are going to need to use many of the same spells to protect themselves. How much variation can you give them?

Can you challenge them much with large groups of lower level enemies or are they all going to die to AE spells in 1, maybe 2 rounds. Can you challenge them with traps? Can you have a puzzle on a door for them to work through when they can just pass through or teleport past it? Can you challenge them with social problems when they can mind control their way through almost all of it? What about a martial based big bad monster?

I believe that this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209723) may be of interest to you, for an alternate take on how a party of a given optimization level can be limited.

[ryu]

The whole point of the world I postulated was to bring consequences and an element of risk to the actions of players who are simply playing for power. If they want to enact some crazy op character shenanigans they better have at least a creative and unexpected plan. Otherwise it's easy to just scale up and the only reason to play like this rather than the normal way would be if you had more fun making the character than playing it. If you are creative and not just treating like a wow clone where you walk up and beat things to death we actually have a new play style. One I might add that actually makes your crazy powerful build cool rather than bland.

[nyarlathotep]

I think it makes sense to have higher level NPCs in shops like that, as well as them having bodyguards to protect the shop, they should have the money after all.
But there are a lot of other situations where a bit of mind control could completely trivialize a non-combat challenge and it would be against friendly or neutral NPCs that, while maybe being in positions of power or simply having collected a lot of information, wouldn't logically have a lot of class levels or ways of protecting themselves from that sort of thing.

Hmm? I'd say that political intrigue, gathering knowledge, and simply utilizing positions of power give you xp, probably not in a combat class but at least in aristocrat so you get a higher save.

[ImperatorK]

A thread is really not the place for that sort of thing. If you have a problem with the post just report it. Its also worth noting that no one else can see infractions/warnings and there is no way to know if someone else got one unless it was bad enough that the mods felt it warranted editing out the post themselves.
My bad. I've spoilered it.


If you think something is inflammatory report it.
That I did.

I'll repeat what I added to my previous post:
My problem with optimization is that it's necessary to make the most of the game.
Note that I'm not saying "It's necessary to have fun". I'm saying that, if you want to use all that the game provides, you have to optimize, otherwise you will lose out on many cool options and adventure opportunities.

[Snails]

The issue is the difference in skill level of the players, just like if one person wants to be the suave party face, but the barbarian's player has such a dominating personality he never gets to talk.

Well, "dominating personality" may be good player skill...or the opposite. A truly Great Player, by my personal definition, would help the Face Man PC get some spotlight time talking to NPCs, even if the shy Face Man's player himself needs a little encouragement.

I would say this is only tangentially related to the OP.

I think we can separate into "away from the table" and "at the table" skill. These can be handled very differently.

The second is not generally something to discourage, unless there are very extreme problems. As I said, a GM does not want to discourage attentive play.

The first can controlled, although it may require effort, and sometimes it is highly desirable or even necessary to do so.

[Erloas]

Hmm? I'd say that political intrigue, gathering knowledge, and simply utilizing positions of power give you xp, probably not in a combat class but at least in aristocrat so you get a higher save.

Which is also why it would seem like the sort of challenge you might put towards PCs. But even if we consider that the aristocrat has been doing this for a long while and earned some levels, even level 8-10 is only a +6/7 to a Will Save and they aren't all that likely to pass the check even against a lower level PC if they've optimized much.
Of course that might be fine if you are looking for ways to give a non-combat oriented PC a place to really stand out.

[ryu]

Is that including feats and wealth by level stuff? For instance: The king has rings that give huge bonuses to most saves because the kingdom values him/he's a very cautious man. It still makes sense and it doesn't come up unless the dominater starts that game.

[Talakeal]

Is that including feats and wealth by level stuff? For instance: The king has rings that give huge bonuses to most saves because the kingdom values him/he's a very cautious man. It still makes sense and it doesn't come up unless the dominater starts that game.

Of course, in a world filled with loot crazed hobos defensive magic items are more likely to make you are target than they are to protect you.

[Flickerdart]

Let us take a character. A very common archetype, I'm sure you will all agree - this character is (or thinks he is, or aspires to be) the best swordsman in the world, a mighty hero like the kind in legends who vanquishes foes with nothing but his blade and his wit.

This character cannot be played without optimization. The go-to class (Fighter) hasn't the martial prowess to stand toe to toe with many CR-appropriate enemies, nor the skill points to outwit them, out of the box. You have to *gasp* optimize to create a character that is a staple in something like 75% of all myths ever. The same thing goes for any martial artist, and any sort of knight - the "obvious" options for these characters suck the big one, as running the most rudimentary numbers will show you. A Paladin of 20th level, for instance, is decimated by a Nightwalker (CR16, so the Paladin should be able to cut through four of these per day, by the game's math). I don't mean "it's a tough fight but the PC wins", I mean "the Nightwalker probably doesn't even take damage". To be any sort of competent against an undead creature 4 levels below him, something that a holy warrior should slaughter, the Paladin needs to go home and rethink his life.

In 3.5, there are only two ways these characters can exist. One is optimization, the other is easy-mode where the DM is forced to throw weak monsters at them and play them poorly in order for the PCs to have a chance of victory. If that's what you enjoy, then more power to you, but yanking down the difficulty slider isn't how I like my gaming.

[Prime32]

I'd like to point out that munchkining is something completely different from optimization or powergaming (those two terms mean pretty much the same in my book), and refers to a playstyle where the player doesn't care about the story, character interaction or challenges, and just wants to amass as much treasure, XP, magic items, power and "points" in general as possible. It has nothing to do with character building, and in fact munchkins tend to often have very straightforward builds, going for what is beefiest and feels most powerful, without necessarily being most powerful.These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win

Optimisers and powergamers both hate munchkins, and do not appreciate being confused with them.


Then there's
Practical Optimisation: Optimising with a particular DM and group in mind. (eg. not using ToB if your DM hates it, and playing a character roughly as powerful as the rest of your party)
Theoretical Optimisation: Thought experiments like Pun-Pun, intended to test the limits of the system rather than for actual play.

[ryu]

Maybe better hidden augmentations like tattoos one of which being something to hide from detect magic, arcane sight, etc.

[ImperatorK]

These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win
This. Short and simple. I like it.

[Yukitsu]

So, the people who stock expensive magic items should be low-level NPCs? Seriously, by the rules, there's always gonna be mid- to high-level NPCs in the place where you can buy a +3 sword (a metropolis).

Actually, yes. Real life awesome things usually aren't guarded by special service guys with the best of the world's fighting power and equipment, they let you take what you're trying to steal. This hasn't really cause giant problems in real life. Some guys who don't like the chaos this causes come and investigate all this and you get wacked or arrested when they find you. DM panic and going "Oh man, I can't let them have this thing even for a second" isn't the best response to this. And if they find a way to keep it all despite a reasoned response from say, the law enforcement from Sigil, or the highest level fighter the combined stores can hire to go beat up the party, congrats they've just earned the loot.

[tribble]

Optimization is good. Optimization is okay. Optimization is something I'd prefer to see over this fad of useless characters in fiction especially who aren't good at anything. I don't want to "identify" with your loser. In fact, I refuse to identify with said loser, because I didn't come to the game to rhapsodise about the futility of it all and how the everyman deserves praise just for surviving and such transparently self-pitying and juvenile fiddle-faddle. I want to see someone doing what deserves to be written, so the historians can write what deserves to be read. I want, in short, a hero.

Obviously, I don't mean all the time, I couldn't care less how badass or not badass you are if I'm running a horror module (until you somehow oneshot the reality-molesting demon, then I'm liable to end that nights session right there while I figure out what to do next, but I digress.) But guys, come on. If you're playing D&D, I should be able to expect you to at least be on par with conan at the appropriate level. If you're playing Exalted, I expect to see an anime superhero. And if you're playing Dark Heresy, then for the love of the Emperor, be someone the inquisition would have a reason to conscript, even if it's just because you can recite the history of your planet backwards from memory.

[ryu]

Unless you go on the assumption that the store owner makes his own magic items and then he literally has to be powerful. Why isn't he adventuring? Why risk the opulent lifestyle and long magic granted lifespan when you can continue adding to both with the brave next generation?

[Tengu_temp]

These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win


I don't agree with those definitions. If anything, optimisation sounds more negative than powergaming for me, because the name carries a sense of detachment from reality - an optimiser won't care if something is reasonable, makes sense or completely overshadows the rest of the group, it's allowed by the rules and it's the most optimal choice so he's going to take it.

[Yukitsu]

All of them are detached from reality, as are the arguments against them. It's a game, it doesn't have much to do with reality.

[Tengu_temp]

The players and the DM are real. So is the fun they're hopefully experiencing.

[Yukitsu]

The players and the DM are real. So is the fun they're hopefully experiencing.

Yes, however you don't optimize your DM or the players, you optimize or powergame or whatever fictional abstract entities. Optimizing is detached from reality, because you aren't optimizing anything real. You aren't role playing anything real. You're playing a game. If for some reason, your game is not an abstraction to you, but a reality, you may need to take a hiatus.

[ryu]

Just to stop the debate over definition how about we just make a habit of explaining our particular definition of these nebulous often overlapping words when they're brought up. That way we can cut semantics and connotations and actually talk about the issues of what we're discussing. Does that sound agreeable?

[Terazul]

Just to stop the debate over definition how about we just make a habit of explaining our particular definition of these nebulous often overlapping words when they're brought up. That way we can cut semantics and connotations and actually talk about the issues of what we're discussing. Does that sound agreeable?

Yeah, you may not personally agree with the definitions put forth by Prime32, but those tend to the be most commonly accepted and referenced ones. So for the sake of discussion, probably best to sit with those.

[navar100]

Ah, well, if we're allowed anecdotal evidence: One player of ours has zero interest in mechanics whatsoever, of any system. As such, he has other people design his characters for him, and the player most interested in system mastery is the designer behind most of his characters. In one particular game, while playing a Clericzilla, he decided a certain prisoner deserved to have her hands smashed to uselessness as the just punishment for having used magic to try and escape (and to kill someone). When the Paladin said that doing so would be going too far, the Cleric refused to back down. The Paladin, knowing she couldn't defeat the Cleric who had more HP, more AC, with greater total bonuses to attack and damage, was the one who was forced to back down. When the punishments grew more extensive as the cleric realized some spells lacked somatic components, the deterrence remained and the Paladin still could not act.

So now, when designing the character for this player, we must be careful not to make him a character which can defeat all or most of the rest of the party, because if we disagree with him, he might not back down. IF he made his own characters, then we'd know the rest of us would each have to pay attention to his mechanics and make sure we'd stand even odds against him. Not because we expect him to do that kind of thing again, but because the one time was enough that it's not something we're going to forget.

Also, if a teleporting Wizard is the primary means of getting the party around, then the Wizard's opinion on where the ship is going holds more weight than otherwise, since it's an incomparably fast and efficient means of getting anywhere which is solely at the command of the wizard himself. I think it's safe to say that while many adventuring groups have nods to democracy, they have politics under the surface very much influenced by merit. If Angel Summoner has a plan, BMX Bandit doesn't have much veto power. That's the largest conflict I see arising from unbalanced optimization... that increased capabilities relative to the rest of the group carry with them greater influence over the story and party dynamic.



This has nothing to do with optimization and everything to do with the player being a donkey cavity demanding everyone bow to his will using the excuse of he can kill their character. Two campaigns ago I played the CoDzilla Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric, and this was when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. My vote was not worth more than the Rogue's by virtue of I Have The POWER, even after I rescued the party from a TPK they suffered because I couldn't attend a game session and my character wasn't there. We are friends and equal members of the party.

[Aricandor]

Wouldn't it, in the end, make perfect sense for an adventurer whose very life is on the line for their livelyhood, to try to learn things in a way to improve their strengths and shore over weakness? :smallsmile:

Shortcomings don't have to be combat-mechanical, and in fact adventurers with that kind seem to me like the short-lived kind.

[ryu]

True those definitions are most common and I didn't say that I disagreed with them. I'm saying clarify what you mean when saying the word first so that a large group of people can argue about actual points instead of what a word means. That way in my opinion lies madness and an arguments that goes in circles with no new points being raised. I wouldn't be saying this if semantics hadn't been going on here for awhile. Still only a suggestion.

[Terazul]

Oh, yeah totally. I was agreeing with you. The "may not personally agree" thing was mostly directed at tengu.

[Snails]

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept


Even if I accept your definition, I would argue that the fact it seems to take hours and hours of effort to create a character that matches even a simple concept is a major negative in the game system, for most groups.

"We want to play knights in shining armor!"

Player A spends 1 hour, and is 80% as effective as one might expect the PC to be at key tasks.

Player B spends 10 hours and his PC is 100% effective.

Player C spends 100 hours and his PC is 150% effective.

Regardless of how you define "optimization", it is the rewards for optimization giving results that are out way of kilter to the character concept that are a potential problem.

[Akal Saris]

Optimization is good. Optimization is okay. Optimization is something I'd prefer to see over this fad of useless characters in fiction especially who aren't good at anything. I don't want to "identify" with your loser. In fact, I refuse to identify with said loser, because I didn't come to the game to rhapsodise about the futility of it all and how the everyman deserves praise just for surviving and such transparently self-pitying and juvenile fiddle-faddle. I want to see someone doing what deserves to be written, so the historians can write what deserves to be read. I want, in short, a hero.

Obviously, I don't mean all the time, I couldn't care less how badass or not badass you are if I'm running a horror module (until you somehow oneshot the reality-molesting demon, then I'm liable to end that nights session right there while I figure out what to do next, but I digress.) But guys, come on. If you're playing D&D, I should be able to expect you to at least be on par with conan at the appropriate level. If you're playing Exalted, I expect to see an anime superhero. And if you're playing Dark Heresy, then for the love of the Emperor, be someone the inquisition would have a reason to conscript, even if it's just because you can recite the history of your planet backwards from memory.

Random digression, but one of the best sessions I've ever played was in a horror (Call of Cthulhu d20) game, where my character turned into a complete badass over about 3 hours of roleplaying, and through a combination of suidical charges and excellent luck with dice, ended up killing a bunch of evil Nazis and the eldritch horror.

[SowZ]

I'll optimize if I am playing in a group of experienced players who optimize, or if I am playing a low tier character with mid to high tiers in the rest of the party, or if I am playing a particular character concept where the story idea is to be really good at one thing, (though I'll make sure it is to the detriment of most other things so the DM can still work around me.)

I'm perfectly happy, though, playing low op. characters. I've done games where my guy was the weakest, (combat wise,) in the party and enjoyed it just as much as when I was the strongest. In my experience, neither way hurts or hampers my roleplaying.

But I don't care how new the group is or what tier we are playing in. My Barbarian won't have a charisma of fifteen and take the Endurance feat.

[ImperatorK]

If my concept is a charismatic entertainer who likes to study different knowledges, I won't care for his combat capabilities and won't complain if he's killed by a random stray cat. I would make him a Bard with max-out Perform and Knowledge skills. Spells would either help me with performing or with knowledges.
It's all about what you want.

[TenRedCats]

I see this discussion a lot and the general feel is that the players benefit most when they build their characters together so they don't step on each others toes while keeping somewhat balanced with each other.

It's as simple as "you all want to be melee characters? Then I'll build a cleric and focus on healing". Or "so we have an archer and an arcane caster? Then I'll build a fighter with a reach weapon and try to keep the enemies attacking me."

[Terazul]

Even if I accept your definition, I would argue that the fact it seems to take hours and hours of effort to create a character that matches even a simple concept is a major negative in the game system, for most groups.

"We want to play knights in shining armor!"

Player A spends 1 hour, and is 80% as effective as one might expect the PC to be at key tasks.

Player B spends 10 hours and his PC is 100% effective.

Player C spends 100 hours and his PC is 150% effective.

Regardless of how you define "optimization", it is the rewards for optimization giving results that are out way of kilter to the character concept that are a potential problem.

What. Time has nothing to do with this. Effective at what? Damage? Defenses? Battlefield control?

Because if it's damage, this supposed player C could spend 5 seconds deciding he wants power attack and at two handed weapon, and it would be better than player B spending 10 hours looking up the best way to kill stuff with a shield because that's his concept. But if player B is optimizing to kill stuff with a shield, then he's optimizing to kill something with a shield while player C isn't, so there's little chance Player C is "150% effective" as B if he just picked up a shield and started swinging it around.

When you optimize, you choose a goal, and choose the best options for that goal. Sometimes, you don't have to look very far. And many times, those goals have nothing to do with someone's else's goals to even be comparable.

As an aside, I've actually found people (like myself) who do optimize for a goal actually tend to take less time building a character than more; We know what we want to achieve, and generally already know where to look for things that push us closer to that goal. It's usually those who have no clue who need to look through the entire feat section a couple times before deciding what they really want to do. In which case, help 'em out!

[Bovine Colonel]

These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win

Optimisers and powergamers both hate munchkins, and do not appreciate being confused with them.


Then there's
Practical Optimisation: Optimising with a particular DM and group in mind. (eg. not using ToB if your DM hates it, and playing a character roughly as powerful as the rest of your party)
Theoretical Optimisation: Thought experiments like Pun-Pun, intended to test the limits of the system rather than for actual play.

Thank you, Prime32. Thank you so much.

I'd like to point out that these are, in fact, the definitions used on these boards. So let's continue the discussion with these definitions and not argue over semantics when we could be discussing the actual bleedin' point, okay guys?

Now, with this in mind:

Practical optimization is a good thing. It allows you to build a character that matches your concept and with a power level equal to that of the rest of the party. It's not as good when not everyone's doing it, but that's a different matter altogether.

As for the rest, well, yes, we already know it shouldn't happen in-game. I believe that much is obvious.

[Jerthanis]

But isn't that a problem intrinsic to D&D rather than players? Not all options are equal, and some options are far more useful than others, for instance, a Wizard levels up and gets Teleport while a Fighter levels up and gets Weapon Specialization.

To an extent, yes. This is a problem more pronounced in D&D than some other systems, but I'd say the majority of systems have this problem to some degree. A player who is good at math and system mastery will quickly identify powerful traits and how to acquire many of them at low cost regardless of the system.


This has nothing to do with optimization and everything to do with the player being a donkey cavity demanding everyone bow to his will using the excuse of he can kill their character. Two campaigns ago I played the CoDzilla Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric, and this was when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. My vote was not worth more than the Rogue's by virtue of I Have The POWER, even after I rescued the party from a TPK they suffered because I couldn't attend a game session and my character wasn't there. We are friends and equal members of the party.

The player in question made no threats, it's simply that he was doing what he thought was right and necessary in spite of a disagreement. The fact that his numbers were all higher just meant there was absolutely no avenue for the Paladin to go down which would stop it from happening.

But why are the characters treating each other equally? What in-universe justification does a good person have for not saying, "Go home, you're obviously in more danger than we thought, I can take care of this." after saving all these people he likes and cares about from certain death singlehandedly? What reason does he have to accept a plan which he disagrees with which also relies upon his personal might? In one game, everyone but the Wizard had the idea to divert the course of a river into the castle of a suspected vampire, but the Wizard ultimately thought it wouldn't work so he refused. If any of the rest of the characters had the same worldshaking power, we could've gone ahead with it, but we didn't.

All I'm saying is that when it comes time to make a decision, only the characters who hold real power hold veto power, and they can do it without proposing an alternate solution because whatever the plan is, it won't go ahead without their participation anyway. Whether this is overtly acknowledged or understood covertly, it will be a factor when deliberation comes to a close without consensus. This is just my personal justification for why whatever the level of optimization the players have, it should be an optimization level shared at a roughly equivalent level.

[Optimator]

These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win

Optimisers and powergamers both hate munchkins, and do not appreciate being confused with them.


Then there's
Practical Optimisation: Optimising with a particular DM and group in mind. (eg. not using ToB if your DM hates it, and playing a character roughly as powerful as the rest of your party)
Theoretical Optimisation: Thought experiments like Pun-Pun, intended to test the limits of the system rather than for actual play.

This has always been my impression as well.

[Philistine]

If I'm not mistaken, some, if not all, of the Dragon Lance books where written as fairly direct copies of events from a game they were playing in.
The difference is that Dragonlance was a setting and a campaign first, and the books came along after the fact and amounted to campaign journals. Thus, the DM and players of the games did indeed enjoy the open-endedness and interactivity that are the entire point of playing a game rather than reading a novel; and afterward the game logs were transcribed, compiled, and edited to form a trio of novels with narrative structure and other assorted literary hoohavery.

Going the other way doesn't work nearly as well; recapitulating the plot of a book (or movie) within a game means that nobody - DM included - has any meaningful choices to make.


I didn't mean to say they were amazing books, but they were ok, and a lot of people do seem to like them.

Raistlin spent a lot of time not being more powerful then everyone else too though. He also had a lot of limitations that made him highly dependent on the rest of the group in order to survive. His weaknesses where a huge part of his character and where he ended up. Even if he did end up being equivalent to the gods in power, so much of what he did to get to that point was directly tied to those first weaknesses. Some where clearly entirely roleplaying type weaknesses but others were (or would have been had it not been a story) mechanical weaknesses.
I find it more than a little ironic that you of all people should take up the defense of Raistlin Majere, who is possibly the most ridiculously munchkined-out character in fiction. A Wizard who dumps all his physical stats to pump Int? That's the definition of min-maxing! (His brother Caramon - a Fighter who dumps his mental stats to pump Str and Con - is hardly better. He's in a lower-tier class, but once you account for that, he's heavily optimized.) By the end of Book 2, he's asserted his dominance over the most powerful mage of the previous millennium; by the end of Book 3, he's so over-the-top powerful that he can seriously plan to knock off not just a god, but his world's entire pantheon.

[Eric Tolle]

I have to agree that 3rd edition was designed around optimization; if you have a point-buy system where characteristics are arranged by choice, then optimization is inevitable. This is not a good thing, as far as I'm concerned, not when it's combined with a legacy class system. Especially not if it's implemented as badly as it was in third edition.

Optimization isn't necessarily bad in of itself, though it quickly exposes the weak points of a system. However, if the optimization requires actions contrary to the fluff put intent of a system, then something is seriously wrong in the design of the game. If basic core-book optimization means that Druids and Clerics are better choice than fighters for a fighters role, if some classes are inherently poor choices to play, then that really reflects poorly on the game designers.

[Knaight]

I have to agree that 3rd edition was designed around optimization; if you have a point-buy system where characteristics are arranged by choice, then optimization is inevitable. This is not a good thing, as far as I'm concerned, not when it's combined with a legacy class system. Especially not if it's implemented as badly as it was in third edition.


The issue mostly comes up when there are multiple ways to do the same thing from the same basis, some of which are simply more powerful than others. For instance, in D&D, there are ways to make a sword and board warrior with certain resources, those being points to use in point buy and levels. Some of these ways will lead to characters simply better at everything, and that is indicative of a flawed game system. The existence of optimization as a concept within a system is, to some degree, an acknowledgement that the system is non-intuitive and has what essentially come down to imbalanced duplicate mechanics. Looking at rules light games, optimization almost never comes up, because the way to embody a concept is blatantly obvious, and there isn't some hidden other way that is the same, except with more power.

[SITB]

To an extent, yes. This is a problem more pronounced in D&D than some other systems, but I'd say the majority of systems have this problem to some degree. A player who is good at math and system mastery will quickly identify powerful traits and how to acquire many of them at low cost regardless of the system.

I dunno. I am not very experienced in other RPGs, but I thought D&D 3.X was especially bad in this regard? I mean, the differences between Samurai and Druid for instance. Spells that invalidate whole tactics, ("What's that grapple? Sorry I have a Freedom Of Movement on. Tripping? I am on a phantom steed."). It seems that the problem is in 3.X design rather then just 'normal' hiccups in the system.

[Knaight]

I dunno. I am not very experienced in other RPGs, but I thought D&D 3.X was especially bad in this regard? I mean, the differences between Samurai and Druid for instance. Spells that invalidate whole tactics, ("What's that grapple? Sorry I have a Freedom Of Movement on. Tripping? I am on a phantom steed."). It seems that the problem is in 3.X design rather then just 'normal' hiccups in the system.

In D&D 3.x , the degree to which optimization affects the extent to which a character is capable of mechanical influence with non character entities is extreme, yes. However, the presence of optimization tends to show up in any particularly crunchy simulations system. For instance, in GURPS there is an optimization process regarding skills, as how much it costs to buy skills at a certain level is based on the level of the attribute they are bought at, and thus there is an optimal level of the attribute that supports skills at a certain level, where optimal is defined as using the fewest character creation resources. It is just as present as D&D, merely not as pronounced.

[SITB]

In D&D 3.x , the degree to which optimization affects the extent to which a character is capable of mechanical influence with non character entities is extreme, yes. However, the presence of optimization tends to show up in any particularly crunchy simulations system. For instance, in GURPS there is an optimization process regarding skills, as how much it costs to buy skills at a certain level is based on the level of the attribute they are bought at, and thus there is an optimal level of the attribute that supports skills at a certain level, where optimal is defined as using the fewest character creation resources. It is just as present as D&D, merely not as pronounced.

I didn't mean that it the issue doesn't exist in other systems, I just thought that it was especially prominent in 3.X.

[nyarlathotep]

I didn't mean that it the issue doesn't exist in other systems, I just thought that it was especially prominent in 3.X.

Kind of. Dark Heresy has the same problem where spellcasters simply replace other classes whole shtick very easily. World of Darkness has it so far as certain combat options are so bad they will get you killed every time and others are flat out better than the norm, but not being a class based system there are no tiers or the like.

[nyarlathotep]

dangit internet

[SowZ]

Kind of. Dark Heresy has the same problem where spellcasters simply replace other classes whole shtick very easily. World of Darkness has it so far as certain combat options are so bad they will get you killed every time and others are flat out better than the norm, but not being a class based system there are no tiers or the like.

I find WoD is best when it isn't combat based.

[Sir Homeslice]

I find WoD is best when it isn't combat based.

A WoD campaign/chronicle/whatever can have combat rules that are used without being combat based.

[SowZ]

A WoD campaign/chronicle/whatever can have combat rules that are used without being combat based.

Oh, sure, when I've done WoD combat does happen, (if you count running away a lot, helping friends who've been wounded and using our best efforts to slow things down combat, hehe,) and I am not knocking that. All I'm saying is that if WoD isn't combat based, who is stronger in combat doesn't hurt game balance as much. Someone can be useless in battle and still be very useful. In a game like D&D, the vast majority of campaigns will make you feel pretty bored if you cannot fight.

[Tyndmyr]

In D&D 3.x , the degree to which optimization affects the extent to which a character is capable of mechanical influence with non character entities is extreme, yes. However, the presence of optimization tends to show up in any particularly crunchy simulations system. For instance, in GURPS there is an optimization process regarding skills, as how much it costs to buy skills at a certain level is based on the level of the attribute they are bought at, and thus there is an optimal level of the attribute that supports skills at a certain level, where optimal is defined as using the fewest character creation resources. It is just as present as D&D, merely not as pronounced.

There is also a ridiculous variation in optimization in other systems, such as 7th Sea. I've got a half-finished guide to optimizing it, and it's quite easy to build a character that other characters in your party couldn't even scratch without GM fiat, and which'll level the rest of the party with great ease.

3.5 is not particularly bad with optimization. Literally any other rules-heavy system ends up the same way. You could probably even optimize for FATAL, though I shudder to think at what that would involve.

[nyarlathotep]

There is also a ridiculous variation in optimization in other systems, such as 7th Sea. I've got a half-finished guide to optimizing it, and it's quite easy to build a character that other characters in your party couldn't even scratch without GM fiat, and which'll level the rest of the party with great ease.

3.5 is not particularly bad with optimization. Literally any other rules-heavy system ends up the same way. You could probably even optimize for FATAL, though I shudder to think at what that would involve.

FATAL optimization involves changing to warrior or mage as soon as you gain the first level in your randomly determined starting class, then you slowly die inside because you're playing FATAL.


I find WoD is best when it isn't combat based.

Personally I find WoD to work best when it's vanilla played like dark*matter but with supernatural stuff instead of aliens. The various non-human races are fine but for several being the supernatural creature gets rid of a lot of the mystique with discovering the unknown and being in a dangerous unforgiving world.

[NichG]

I love 7th Sea, but I have a particular loathing for the aspect that it (and other systems) have that two absolutely mechanically identical characters could cost vastly different amounts of xp to generate. At that point, its not interesting optimization, its just a tax on people who aren't familiar with the system.

I don't particularly like the idea of path-dependent costs in character growth though I can see as how it could make an interesting minigame (do I get this now or in three games when it'll be cheaper?). But path-dependent costs during character generation are just bad. So generally when I run 7th Sea (specifically my variant thereof) I strip out the whole buying skill sets for the free rank/hero points are different than xp thing to make that go away.

[SowZ]

FATAL optimization involves changing to warrior or mage as soon as you gain the first level in your randomly determined starting class, then you slowly die inside because you're playing FATAL.



Personally I find WoD to work best when it's vanilla played like dark*matter but with supernatural stuff instead of aliens. The various non-human races are fine but for several being the supernatural creature gets rid of a lot of the mystique with discovering the unknown and being in a dangerous unforgiving world.

Yeah. Last time I played a good WoD the only motivation for my guy was to get back to his life but the campainge wouldn't end until we figured out what was going on. (It was not supposed to be clear.) When we figured it out, no need for a huge climactic battle. We figured it out. The campaing was done.

[Tyndmyr]

I love 7th Sea, but I have a particular loathing for the aspect that it (and other systems) have that two absolutely mechanically identical characters could cost vastly different amounts of xp to generate. At that point, its not interesting optimization, its just a tax on people who aren't familiar with the system.

I don't particularly like the idea of path-dependent costs in character growth though I can see as how it could make an interesting minigame (do I get this now or in three games when it'll be cheaper?). But path-dependent costs during character generation are just bad. So generally when I run 7th Sea (specifically my variant thereof) I strip out the whole buying skill sets for the free rank/hero points are different than xp thing to make that go away.

That and the different prices for hp/xp is terrible.

Also, certain things should not have been printed. Mostly things in later books. Aptitude or whatever it is that lets you choose raises AFTER rolling? Terrible. You basically slap that on any combat skill, and your damage goes through the roof, with no risky tradeoff with missing.

Combine that with say, Drachenheisen or well chosen Glamor, and combat becomes a ridiculously easy affair.

I love the system to death, but balance can be pretty horrific.

[Erloas]

I find it more than a little ironic that you of all people should take up the defense of Raistlin Majere, who is possibly the most ridiculously munchkined-out character in fiction. A Wizard who dumps all his physical stats to pump Int? That's the definition of min-maxing! (His brother Caramon - a Fighter who dumps his mental stats to pump Str and Con - is hardly better. He's in a lower-tier class, but once you account for that, he's heavily optimized.) By the end of Book 2, he's asserted his dominance over the most powerful mage of the previous millennium; by the end of Book 3, he's so over-the-top powerful that he can seriously plan to knock off not just a god, but his world's entire pantheon.
Well to be fair its been somewhere between 10 and 20 years since I read the books. Though the main point was that as a character he was as much defined by his weaknesses as his strengths. He was also not a Batman Wizard with the answers to all of the parties problems all the time. Given it was an earlier edition and all the options weren't there. At least of what I remember of the books he wasn't even able to bypass or singlehandedly fix even 1/3 of the problems the party ran into. And by the 3rd book he seems much more like an antagonist then anything else.

And actually I have somewhat less issue with min-maxing then having a super character. Min-maxing by default creates weaknesses in a character that can be exploited both mechanically and in a story sense.
Which I don't think there is an even somewhat common term for, other then maybe Tier 1. Its having a character without weakness or with weaknesses that are easily covered or never come up. Swordguy I think mentioned that, where a Wizard has the weakness of a spellbook, but any DM that wants to try and use that weakness is considered a bad DM.

I also tend to find the "building to a concept" idea more of an excuse then anything else. Especially since most people that say it also say its completely ok to completely re-write the fluff for a class while you are at it. If you're going to re-write the class fluff to fit your concept anyway, and the "concept" is all thats important, you can single class and rewrite the fluff of the class and be there in one simple step.
Someone earlier (or possibly another thread) gave the example of a holy warrior that was a barbarian/cleric/2-3 other classes/PrCs... well the holy warrior concept is what a Paladin is. The same way Nale is a bard by concept but built using multiclassing to get the same thing done, though in this case not in a powerful method.
Especially when the concepts are as basic as they are portrayed here. "I want to be the best fighter in the world" is hardly one that justifies much of anything. Its also kind of meaningless without metaknowledge. And of course its relative to the setting, if you don't have piles of multiclassing NPCs running around at high level you could be the best fighter in the world just by reaching Fighter level 20.

Lets say that was your goal in real life, where you have no meta knowledge. How do you get there? Is it best to train 2-3 years in every martial art you can find, is it better to focus in 2 for 20 years each or 1 for 40 years? Without metaknowledge of the world there is no way of knowing what is the best choice. Your character doesn't know what group of classes is going to make him the most powerful, you as a player do. And without context it doesn't mean much either, maybe the real best fighter is actually just really fast with a gun, or is sneaky and carries a sniper rifle, without constraint and context "best fighter" is meaningless.

And how often do these concepts involve specific shortcomings of characters? None that anyone has mentioned so far that I've noticed. Its all better, its all concepts with as few problems as possible.

[ryu]

Thing is though multiclassing is there because what you can do is actually part of the concept. For example that paladin who by raw can't take out an undead four cr below him at high levels doesn't really work as a heroic undead vanquishing warrior now does it? Fluff rewrite only happens when either no class has the desired fluff or the only classes that do can't actually do what they're supposed to. See my point?

[Gnaeus]

And of course its relative to the setting, if you don't have piles of multiclassing NPCs running around at high level you could be the best fighter in the world just by reaching Fighter level 20.

Lets say that was your goal in real life, where you have no meta knowledge. How do you get there? Is it best to train 2-3 years in every martial art you can find, is it better to focus in 2 for 20 years each or 1 for 40 years? Without metaknowledge of the world there is no way of knowing what is the best choice. Your character doesn't know what group of classes is going to make him the most powerful, you as a player do. And without context it doesn't mean much either, maybe the real best fighter is actually just really fast with a gun, or is sneaky and carries a sniper rifle, without constraint and context "best fighter" is meaningless.

But you do have context. In the level 20 party next to you is a Druid 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 20 with Shapechange. They are always going to be more flexible than you. They are always going to have more options. But if you can't stand next to them should they choose to go into melee and fight the same things they are fighting, you aren't close to the best fighter in the world. You aren't the best fighter in your group. You aren't close to being the best fighter in your group...:smallsmile:

[Dramiscius]

I get the feeling that the meaning and use of 'Optimize' have finally gotten that divorce.

I dunno, I get called a "mix maxer" by friends all the time, because they seem to despise how I have a natural tendency in any type of game I play to make a bee line for the most efficient possible route to victory.

This is called optimization, if im playing a table top rpg I don't mind role playing but i'm also not going to go making a ****ty character with 12 pages of back story just because other people don't enjoy my play style. Though on the other hand, I also find alot of the people that cry incessantly about "min maxing" tend to be the people that constantly run in fear from any type of competitive activity, where I happen to enjoy competition whether I win or lose, it's more fun then bashing a mindless automaton.

In short, there's nothing wrong with min maxing or optimizing characters, nothing at all. If you don't like people that do it, don't play with them, no one forced you, maybe you should stop making ****ty character choices for no good reason instead of demanding others do the same. Whoops, went off on a bit of a tangent there. But yea anyway I'll min max and optimize all day long because I enjoy it, my characters will have weaknesses, but I'll do whatever I can to minimize them or their effect most of the time because it makes sense to do so, and because the gaming systems developed revolving around number crunching encourage such activities.

Honestly the most fun I've had with a tabletop RPG though has been with an older game system called Everway, and different adaptations of it for different game systems, the best of which I had so far was using the everway system to run paranoia games (god paranoia is amazingly fun and hilarious) because you get the fun of the setting, without dealing with the convoluted rules. If you want to eliminate or reduce "min maxing" or "optimizing" start by playing more diceless game systems (sorry D&D) and play more free form rpgs. You can still make smart player decisions, but these are the places where role playing can actually shine out the most.

[Mikeavelli]

Well to be fair its been somewhere between 10 and 20 years since I read the books. Though the main point was that as a character he was as much defined by his weaknesses as his strengths. He was also not a Batman Wizard with the answers to all of the parties problems all the time. Given it was an earlier edition and all the options weren't there. At least of what I remember of the books he wasn't even able to bypass or singlehandedly fix even 1/3 of the problems the party ran into. And by the 3rd book he seems much more like an antagonist then anything else.


The Heroes of the Lance are what happens when you take a real D&D group and write a story about them. Only the gamers are good role-players as well.

The characters really are min-maxed beyond all reason, but rather than being silly munchkinry idiots, they run around doing awesome stuff! I think fully half the people I've ever gamed with have wanted their characters to challenge the gods at some point.

But, it is amazing how many seemingly impossible problems got solved once Raistlin started saying, "LOLMAGIC!"

Just off the top of my head, The Green Dragon in the Elf Forest, and the entire temple of Takhisis at the end of the War of the Lance.

Fortunately, it didn't detract from anything.

[Coidzor]

someone else can do all the work for me.

:smallconfused: Unless it's the most basic of build-goals, like a character that just wants to do as much damage as possible on a charge, the most important part of actually playing the damn thing is on the individual.

Even the most foolproof Tier 1 class, the Druid, can be messed up by someone who doesn't apply their brainpower to the task.

[Snails]

I didn't mean that it the issue doesn't exist in other systems, I just thought that it was especially prominent in 3.X.

Not sure it is more prominent, but it is a crunchy system and these issues affect all crunchy systems to some degree.

I think Knaight's point is a good one -- this does boil down to the system being non-intuitive with too much apparent redundancy.

There are many feats that seem to be duplicates in concept. In most cases one of those feats is absolutely better 90+% of the time. And other feats are just plain bad.

Therefore we have lots of "sucker's plays" lying around. These nothing more than cruft adding to the overhead of using the system.

It is not that the feats do not match a concept -- all the feats ever written match some very reasonable concept. It is that the player has to do a lot of work separating the wheat from the chaff before he can even understand the reasonable paths for his concept.

[Snails]

In short, there's nothing wrong with min maxing or optimizing characters, nothing at all. If you don't like people that do it, don't play with them, no one forced you, maybe you should stop making ****ty character choices for no good reason instead of demanding others do the same. Whoops, went off on a bit of a tangent there. But yea anyway I'll min max and optimize all day long because I enjoy it, my characters will have weaknesses, but I'll do whatever I can to minimize them or their effect most of the time because it makes sense to do so, and because the gaming systems developed revolving around number crunching encourage such activities.

I challenge your assumption that other players are making ****ty character choices for no good reason. Not that such never happens, but it is hardly the norm.

I play with players with a mixture of mixmaxing skill, and "no good reason" could not be further from the truth. The system is so filled with cruft and sucker's plays that it is really quite easy for people who are quite literally "as smart as a rocket scientist" to make poor choices.

I recognize that there is always going to be differences in tactical savvy and number crunching in the heat of a battle that will yield rewards. But I do not think a system that gives great rewards for those who own 13 books and spend 200 hours studying them is always such a wonderful thing, even if sometimes I do enjoy that kind of thing myself.

[Erloas]

But you do have context. In the level 20 party next to you is a Druid 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 20 with Shapechange. They are always going to be more flexible than you. They are always going to have more options. But if you can't stand next to them should they choose to go into melee and fight the same things they are fighting, you aren't close to the best fighter in the world. You aren't the best fighter in your group. You aren't close to being the best fighter in your group...:smallsmile:

While that may be true, you didn't know that when you started, as a character. The same way right now in the real world you have no way of knowing what is *actually* the best choice for reaching the goals you have.

When you started at level 1 you very well could have been fighting with completely different people, and even if you were with the same people the whole time you were a better fighter then the druid, cleric, and wizard, maybe even 2 of them combined. And even if the wolf the druid had was your equal, well you don't even have the option of being a wolf, so its not like you're going to say "I want to level up in being a wolf" the same what that even though a minotaur is a better fighter then you, as a human or dwarf, you simple don't have the option of being a minotaur.
At what level does those classes start being noticeable more powerful then the fighter in melee combat? At that point could you multiclass to one of their classes and hope to catch up to them? Is someone with an Int of 18 and a strength of 9 going to wake up one morning as a kid and say "I want to be the best fighter in the world"? No, its going to probably be the one that would be the typical fighter, average to low Int/Wis and high strength and con, the sort that would actually really suck at any of those other classes.

And sure, you might run into higher level characters as a kid, but at least in the base campaign designs you probably aren't going to be running into more then a couple over maybe level 3-4, they aren't going to be highly optimized and you aren't likely to be seeing how they fight to compare them anyway. In fact what you will probably be exposed to is the captain of the guard thats a level 6 fighter and the strongest and best warrior you've ever seen and you watch him all day beating up on the new recruits and besting the others in training, but you don't know that they are warriors, lower level barbarians and fighters. And you will probably hear stories of heroes doing great deeds and wanting to emulate them but they will probably be vague enough to not know the classes, and it will be about the team doing it, not just one person on the team. No one tells the story of the wizard that killed a lot of stuff without even trying and even if the main martial fighter takes down the giant with a single blow the story isn't going to say hes a barbarian/fighter/PrCX with pounce and leap attack and charge.

The point being, that without a huge amount of meta knowledge being used to build your character not much of it makes sense. There is no reasonable way for your character to have that knowledge and to make those choices.

[Dramiscius]

I challenge your assumption that other players are making ****ty character choices for no good reason. Not that such never happens, but it is hardly the norm.

I play with players with a mixture of mixmaxing skill, and "no good reason" could not be further from the truth. The system is so filled with cruft and sucker's plays that it is really quite easy for people who are quite literally "as smart as a rocket scientist" to make poor choices.


The point is if you make the choice to purposely make a inept character, don't get angry because someone else didn't. If someone's new to the game then "shockingly" they'll probably make poor decisions based on their inexperience concerning character building.

If you don't like how other people play, keep it to yourself or don't play with them. Especially when someone else playing better has no direct negative impact on you or anyone else, aside from maybe hurting your feelings, in which case that doesn't matter either.



I recognize that there is always going to be differences in tactical savvy and number crunching in the heat of a battle that will yield rewards. But I do not think a system that gives great rewards for those who own 13 books and spend 200 hours studying them is always such a wonderful thing, even if sometimes I do enjoy that kind of thing myself.

If you REALLY think that you have to own 13 books and spend 200 hours studying them to make potent characters in any kind of pnp rpg, I feel sorry for you, because you clearly have been living under a rock and haven't discovered things as simple as GOOGLE yet.

[ryu]

You didn't know when you started you say? What about the legends, lore, other heroes, and such. As a matter of fact your character would actually KNOW more about who really always had top power rather than guessing as to who did in the particular setting. The argument from lack of knowledge assumes your characters don't even know common legends and war stories.

[Sucrose]

While that may be true, you didn't know that when you started, as a character. The same way right now in the real world you have no way of knowing what is *actually* the best choice for reaching the goals you have.

When you started at level 1 you very well could have been fighting with completely different people, and even if you were with the same people the whole time you were a better fighter then the druid, cleric, and wizard, maybe even 2 of them combined. And even if the wolf the druid had was your equal, well you don't even have the option of being a wolf, so its not like you're going to say "I want to level up in being a wolf" the same what that even though a minotaur is a better fighter then you, as a human or dwarf, you simple don't have the option of being a minotaur.
At what level does those classes start being noticeable more powerful then the fighter in melee combat? At that point could you multiclass to one of their classes and hope to catch up to them? Is someone with an Int of 18 and a strength of 9 going to wake up one morning as a kid and say "I want to be the best fighter in the world"? No, its going to probably be the one that would be the typical fighter, average to low Int/Wis and high strength and con, the sort that would actually really suck at any of those other classes.

And sure, you might run into higher level characters as a kid, but at least in the base campaign designs you probably aren't going to be running into more then a couple over maybe level 3-4, they aren't going to be highly optimized and you aren't likely to be seeing how they fight to compare them anyway. In fact what you will probably be exposed to is the captain of the guard thats a level 6 fighter and the strongest and best warrior you've ever seen and you watch him all day beating up on the new recruits and besting the others in training, but you don't know that they are warriors, lower level barbarians and fighters. And you will probably hear stories of heroes doing great deeds and wanting to emulate them but they will probably be vague enough to not know the classes, and it will be about the team doing it, not just one person on the team. No one tells the story of the wizard that killed a lot of stuff without even trying and even if the main martial fighter takes down the giant with a single blow the story isn't going to say hes a barbarian/fighter/PrCX with pounce and leap attack and charge.

The point being, that without a huge amount of meta knowledge being used to build your character not much of it makes sense. There is no reasonable way for your character to have that knowledge and to make those choices.

For the melee classes, at least, building your character from an in-character stance doesn't make any sense no matter which way you slice it, unless you're playing in a self-aware parody campaign.

Fighters don't know that they're Fighters. Barbarians certainly don't regard themselves as Barbarians. Warriors don't know that they're Warriors (though all the above would call themselves warriors), Rogues aren't always rogues.

Consequently, except for those classes with direct connections between background and mechanics, like Wizards and Clerics (and even multiclassing into the latter can be considered a matter of having gained a sudden divine insight, a la the Buddha), multiclassing is no more nonsensical than staying in-class, from the in-world effects, particularly when you're designing around a central concept. Why is a warrior who eventually develops such fury that he sometimes throws himself into a berserker fugue any more nonsensical than a berserker who gains an uncanny sense toward traps, despite having never been near an arrow trap, or even ambushed?

To turn your question around, why do you demand that people advance in a single class, when they could reasonably learn skills of other classes as a result of their experiences? Why force someone to continue a path that will ultimately lead to irrelevance, when with the right system knowledge, they can plot a sensible course that still allows them to stand as at least a useful part of the team, if not a reality alterer on the level of the casters? Why can't he at least be mighty enough to kill most enemies that he faces?

Optimizing is simply choosing which set of abilities your character should get to both represent your concept and be effective enough to meet the challenges of the campaign.

[WarKitty]

Well to be fair its been somewhere between 10 and 20 years since I read the books. Though the main point was that as a character he was as much defined by his weaknesses as his strengths. He was also not a Batman Wizard with the answers to all of the parties problems all the time. Given it was an earlier edition and all the options weren't there. At least of what I remember of the books he wasn't even able to bypass or singlehandedly fix even 1/3 of the problems the party ran into. And by the 3rd book he seems much more like an antagonist then anything else.

And actually I have somewhat less issue with min-maxing then having a super character. Min-maxing by default creates weaknesses in a character that can be exploited both mechanically and in a story sense.
Which I don't think there is an even somewhat common term for, other then maybe Tier 1. Its having a character without weakness or with weaknesses that are easily covered or never come up. Swordguy I think mentioned that, where a Wizard has the weakness of a spellbook, but any DM that wants to try and use that weakness is considered a bad DM.

A quick point on the spellbook thing: The reason taking a spellbook is considered a bad DM'ing move is because the wizard is completely useless without his spellbook. It would be kind of like putting the fighter into a situation where there were no weapons whatsoever. Making a character useless is bad form. Exploiting weaknesses should not leave any character helpless for an extended period of time.

[ryu]

So take the spellbook but give a temporary replacement or something. This is how you troll a wizard while still allowing him to do stuff.

[Erloas]

You didn't know when you started you say? What about the legends, lore, other heroes, and such. As a matter of fact your character would actually KNOW more about who really always had top power rather than guessing as to who did in the particular setting. The argument from lack of knowledge assumes your characters don't even know common legends and war stories.You will hear about them, I even said quite a bit about that. However in almost every case its not going to be a single person doing it, its going to be a group, and everyone is going to have their part in the legend. The story is also not going to say what classes they took to get to that power.


To turn your question around, why do you demand that people advance in a single class, when they could reasonably learn skills of other classes as a result of their experiences?
I don't think someone should have to stay single classes, but I think there should be a reasonable progression and tie in between classes. But my main issue is with builds that make it so someone has as close to no weaknesses as possible. I feel things are less interesting when characters don't have to work with others, and that the fewer weaknesses someone has the harder it is to challenge them, and that overcoming the challenge is the main point. That characters that are powerful enough to trivialize most things they face leave little room for drama and tension. And even builds with weaknesses, but ones that are completely binary, are just as bad. I know someone else said something about that in another thread with the charging/leaping/whatever else build that could kill almost anything in a single round as long as he could reach them and if he couldn't reach them then he couldn't do anything at all. Which leads to not being able to challenge the character, you either give them something they can 1 shot, or you give them something they can't possibly beat.


And to take another example from another type of game. Battletech, its RAW and not that hard to build a TC pulse laser clan 'Mech with jump jets that is very powerful. However its powerful enough that it completely eliminates most other choices that can be taken. Nothing else can beat them in a terrain heavy setting, you either take them yourself or you loose. In a very open board they can be countered with some "turret" builds but not a lot else. With those 'Mechs on the field any Light or Medium 'Mech, vehicle, VOTL, or infantry is almost worthless and of the Heavy and Assault 'Mechs only some builds are viable. By one person fielding them everyone else is forced to follow suit or be irrelevant. However if they aren't there then there are a lot of good tactics that can be used with smaller 'Mechs, the range of builds across the board are increased drastically. They know they are too powerful but didn't take them out last revision because they didn't want to invalidate 20+ years of canon and you can't remove them without also messing up plenty of other perfectly acceptable builds that use each of the parts in more reasonable ways. One overpowered build reduces the variety in the system by 80%. It makes the game much less interesting.

And that seems to be the case in so many games. Even MMOs or computer games. People find the optimal build/unit/strategy and other options are no longer really options.

[Swordguy]

A quick point on the spellbook thing: The reason taking a spellbook is considered a bad DM'ing move is because the wizard is completely useless without his spellbook. It would be kind of like putting the fighter into a situation where there were no weapons whatsoever. Making a character useless is bad form. Exploiting weaknesses should not leave any character helpless for an extended period of time.

But there's the thing...you know that, when you decide to play a wizard, much of your power is tied to a physical object that can be stolen/lost/etc. You KNOW this going in. That's one of the inherent limitations on your Ultimate Cosmic Power. By choosing to play the class, you agree to its limitations. How can anyone argue that you shouldn't be subject to a class's limits, but still get all of its benefits?

Yes, it sucks to get rendered useless by losing your spellbook (or wearing metal, or breaking your moral code, etc, etc)...but you knew it was a possibility when you rolled the class! If you aren't OK with that, why would you as a player choose to play the class in the first place?

[WarKitty]

But there's the thing...you know that, when you decide to play a wizard, much of your power is tied to a physical object that can be stolen/lost/etc. You KNOW this going in. That's one of the inherent limitations on your Ultimate Cosmic Power. By choosing to play the class, you agree to its limitations. How can anyone argue that you shouldn't be subject to a class's limits, but still get all of its benefits?

Yes, it sucks to get rendered useless by losing your spellbook (or wearing metal, or breaking your moral code, etc, etc)...but you knew it was a possibility when you rolled the class! If you aren't OK with that, why would you as a player choose to play the class in the first place?

Because I like having high intelligence and casting prepared spells? Seriously, that's why I would play a wizard. (Course, I'd probably have at least 2 different back-up spellbooks). Or for a case I was put in...the DM used a helm of opposite alignment. I pointed out that had I failed the save, I'd have lost all my powers for a significant period of time. Did I know about the alignment restrictions when I picked a druid? Of course! But I didn't pick it for the alignment restrictions, which I actually think are rather silly. I picked it because I like playing prepped casters and I find wild shape and the options with animal companions entertaining. I would still have been quite upset with the DM if he made me lose all my class powers for several sessions for playing the class that fits my character. Probably enough to quit the game, since there would be no point in my being there anyway.

Edit: That and a lot of the scenarios I see on this board are rather obviously contrived specifically to nerf the player. Which is bad form no matter what. If it makes sense in-game to take the spellbook, that's one thing. But if the problem is "the wizard is too powerful," the proper course of action is to discuss with the wizard OOC how to make things work better. Otherwise it turns into an arms race between the players and the DM.

[Swordguy]

I don't like getting hit in the face with a puck, but I play ice hockey anyway. That's part of the game, even though it sucks. Isn't it more than a little disingenuous to play only the part of the game that benefits you while ignoring all the other parts? How it that not min-maxing in its most literal form if you're maxing out all the things that benefit you (I want to play a class with weaknessex X, Y, and Z), while minimizing the things that don't (I'll quit if I ever have to deal with weaknesses X, Y, or Z)? It's not min-maxing with the character; it's min-maxing as the player.



EDIT: Sorry, GenCon carpool just arrived. Be back Monday. Some other time?

[Gnaeus]

And that seems to be the case in so many games. Even MMOs or computer games. People find the optimal build/unit/strategy and other options are no longer really options.

If that were in fact the case, there would be no fighters, rogues, or barbarians at all. Tier 1s can do everything better. The tier 1 is like that broken mech you spoke about. The melee character with 6 classes is like the turret mech who has a chance to be relevant in the right terrain. The single class fighter is the obsolete infantry, who can't play in the same game in a meaningful way. Melee characters have huge weaknesses, regardless of build.

[Prime32]

A quick point on the spellbook thing: The reason taking a spellbook is considered a bad DM'ing move is because the wizard is completely useless without his spellbook. It would be kind of like putting the fighter into a situation where there were no weapons whatsoever. Making a character useless is bad form. Exploiting weaknesses should not leave any character helpless for an extended period of time.This problem could be reduced by giving wizards Spell Mastery as a bonus feat. (give sorcerers Eschew Materials and Heighten Spell while you're at it)

[WarKitty]

I don't like getting hit in the face with a puck, but I play ice hockey anyway. That's part of the game, even though it sucks. Isn't it more than a little disingenuous to play only the part of the game that benefits you while ignoring all the other parts? How it that not min-maxing in its most literal form if you're maxing out all the things that benefit you (I want to play a class with weaknessex X, Y, and Z), while minimizing the things that don't (I'll quit if I ever have to deal with weaknesses X, Y, or Z)? It's not min-maxing with the character; it's min-maxing as the player.

There's a significant difference between "taking advantage of a weakness" and "rendering a character useless for a long period of time." There are all kinds of ways to take advantage of a character's weaknesses that don't effectively remove them from play. Use an AMF. Use enemies with SR. Target the wizard's Fort save. Throw a golem at him that's programmed to attack casters first. These are all legitimate tactics that take advantage of the wizard's weaknesses without removing him from play. And they're all fair tactics. The problem with taking the spellbook is that it goes beyond taking advantage of a weakness and renders the character essentially unplayable. It's not like getting hit with a puck in ice hockey - it's more like walking onto the field knowing that there's a high chance of having your leg broken so you can't play anymore.

[Andorax]

These definitions seem to be more common:

Optimisation: Making build choices so that your character's abilities match your concept
Powergaming: Playing to win
Munchkinry: Cheating to win

Optimisers and powergamers both hate munchkins, and do not appreciate being confused with them.

Then there's
Practical Optimisation: Optimising with a particular DM and group in mind. (eg. not using ToB if your DM hates it, and playing a character roughly as powerful as the rest of your party)
Theoretical Powergaming: Thought experiments like Pun-Pun, intended to test the limits of the system rather than for actual play.

Edited. You can claim Theoretical Optimisation and "no, I never really meant it to be played.", but someone else will pull it back off the internet and try to utilize it, or as many pieces of it as he things he can get away with. If you're pushing the acknowledged limits of the system, you're Powergaming.


I really do see what the OP was getting at, and wish the above definitions were in the 4th post insteead of the 4th page...would have saved a lot of postcount arguing definitions.

From a DM's perspective, I also get upset with the Powergaming (to use the above defintions) that I've seen, primarially on these forums. It's not that I couldn't create a challenge for these sorts of characters, it's that I really don't feel it's a worthwhile use of my time.

I've seen too many high-level encoutners come down to "guess my invulnerability", or the "epic" battle between the Azurite priest and Redcloak. Neither of these make for great story.


Or to go back to the superhero analogies...the problem isn't Superman and the stories with him. The problem is the Superfriends stories, where Superman is so much more awesome than the rest of them that they're often reduced to the role of scouts, cheerleaders, and "random mook roundup patrol" while Superman wins the day...a common situation when you have mixed levels of optimisation and powergaming in the same group.

[Coidzor]

I don't like getting hit in the face with a puck, but I play ice hockey anyway. That's part of the game, even though it sucks. Isn't it more than a little disingenuous to play only the part of the game that benefits you while ignoring all the other parts?

Care to explain that logic to the rest of us? I was unaware that hitting people in the face with the puck was an intended and desirable part of the game of ice hockey.

[Tavar]

Edited. You can claim Theoretical Optimisation and "no, I never really meant it to be played.", but someone else will pull it back off the internet and try to utilize it, or as many pieces of it as he things he can get away with. If you're pushing the acknowledged limits of the system, you're Powergaming.

Knives can be used to kill people. This doesn't make people who sell knives accessory to murder.

[Gnaeus]

Edited. You can claim Theoretical Optimisation and "no, I never really meant it to be played.", but someone else will pull it back off the internet and try to utilize it, or as many pieces of it as he things he can get away with. If you're pushing the acknowledged limits of the system, you're Powergaming.

I play in a con game called the cheesegrinder. You make the most powerful character you can, and you are subjected to random rooms filled with over CR encounters by sadistic DMs until you die. Making the strongest legal PC is the purpose of the game. If you don't, you lose.

My local game runs from tier 2-4 and is middle-high optimization. We have a spirit shaman, a chameleon, a swift hunter and a daring outlaw, all built at a solid optimization level.

If I played my cheesegrinder character in my local game, it would be powergaming. If I took my local game character and played him in cheesegrinder, he would be stomped. If someone took my character from my local game (because I have posted him to ask for advice) and played it in a low op game, it would be powergaming. Those are characters that are meant to be played, and are very reasonable in their games. Whether a character is overpowered or underpowered is all about context. I can't help what someone does with my internet posts.

[ryu]

You don't need specifics and even then you won't be copying them to the letter. For example: ''Gee this legend speaks of a guy who lived for centuries, killed many dragons, and turned the tide of a war almost single handedly by throwing magic at people. I want to be a magic user!'' Now keep in mind this could still lead to many choices. Wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid for just base classes. Maybe good looking prc but that's all you'd want.

[Erloas]

Care to explain that logic to the rest of us? I was unaware that hitting people in the face with the puck was an intended and desirable part of the game of ice hockey.
That getting hit with the puck is a known risk you take if you want to play hockey. The point is that it isn't desirable or intended but that doesn't mean it can't happen, and if you tried to prevent it completely you would probably ruin the game.

The problem with taking the spellbook is that it goes beyond taking advantage of a weakness and renders the character essentially unplayable.
So how is that different then when the magic classes let the martial classes know that they can just go grab a bit to eat while they defeat all of the flying and magical enemies that the martial classes can't get to? And the reason there are no martial enemies for the martial players to fights is because the casters can kill them so easily that they aren't a challenge at all.
Also, by RAW a mid level wizard should already have 2, if not 3 spellbooks. It would be possible to steal just one of them to temporarily limit the caster until he can get it back, reducing his power but not making him useless. And maybe the point is to force the wizard to be a bit more selective on his spell use so he is very conservative about it until he can get the book back. The wizard is smart, he should be able to think of ways to be creatively useful even if its not with magic.


I've seen too many high-level encoutners come down to "guess my invulnerability", or the "epic" battle between the Azurite priest and Redcloak. Neither of these make for great story.
Which is basically what I'm getting at. As you increase power the methods of dealing with it decrease as well.


You don't need specifics and even then you won't be copying them to the letter. For example: ''Gee this legend speaks of a guy who lived for centuries, killed many dragons, and turned the tide of a war almost single handedly by throwing magic at people. I want to be a magic user!'' Now keep in mind this could still lead to many choices. Wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid for just base classes. Maybe good looking prc but that's all you'd want.
Which is exactly my point. You don't know what they did to get there, so you can't possibly use that as "in character" knowledge to make your advancement choices. Now if you are trying to say thats how they know to pick a caster, well you don't even know if its a full caster. And there would probably also be legends of martial characters doing great deeds.

[WarKitty]

So how is that different then when the magic classes let the martial classes know that they can just go grab a bit to eat while they defeat all of the flying and magical enemies that the martial classes can't get to? And the reason there are no martial enemies for the martial players to fights is because the casters can kill them so easily that they aren't a challenge at all.
Also, by RAW a mid level wizard should already have 2, if not 3 spellbooks. It would be possible to steal just one of them to temporarily limit the caster until he can get it back, reducing his power but not making him useless. And maybe the point is to force the wizard to be a bit more selective on his spell use so he is very conservative about it until he can get the book back. The wizard is smart, he should be able to think of ways to be creatively useful even if its not with magic.

The first one is still a significant problem. It's what the posts on the tier system were intended to point out so people could help correct it. If it's an issue in the actual game, the proper response is to discuss it OOC and change something around. What gets changed around depends on the group and the game.

The second...again, depends on the game. I actually wouldn't object so much if it made sense in the game. Most threads on here are "help my wizard is breaking the game, how do I get rid of their spellbook?" Which, like I said, really indicates a problem that should be solved OOC.

[ryu]

Again I don't need specifics to want to be a caster. Do I know they did the above x, y, and z with magic? Yes? All the in character knowledge a sensible person would need to at least be interested in magic.

Second if my character does in fact know the legends I can in fact use them as motive to want to be a caster. The dm that says otherwise is telling me what I think is reasonable given the stated ic knowledge.

Thirdly martial legends don't work on the same levels. Oh this human lived into his seventh decade, played second fiddle to a mage against a dragon, and killed about twenty people (Probably generous estimate) in a somewhat large battle in a war and lost an arm in the process. That just sounds weaksauce when compared to throwing magic. Matter of fact you could bring in a weakness and roleplaying point with flaw: Obsession devoted to the idea of the legend which ultimately leads to a single minded, gullible character.
---
Now about your point on magic and martial differences. It's their own fault for not even suggesting tome of battle. The book designed to make them not useless at high level.

[IncoherentEssay]

That getting hit with the puck is a known risk you take if you want to play hockey. The point is that it isn't desirable or intended but that doesn't mean it can't happen, and if you tried to prevent it completely you would probably ruin the game.

There are three types of wizards that catch the proverbial puck in the face:
1.)ones below level 5
2.)ones that get hit by DM fiat
3.)ones that assumed the DM wouldn't aim one at their face

For everything else, there's Shrink Item. Details here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11371345&postcount=342).

So yeah, spellbooks can be made entirely off-limits to theft short of Epic spells/direct divine intervention. So i don't think it is all that unreasonable to handwave it away or abstract it to a % tax on the wizard's wealth.

Especially since spellbooks have a few badly thought-out rules about them: the 100gp/page market-pricing scheme that let's you somehow sell a book full of worthless cantrips for a considerable sum. Spellbooks are infact terrible loot to sell: if wizards are rare, where would you find a buyer anyways? And if they are common, then most of the spells in the book will likely be available through other, legal means, making stolen books & known book-thieves not worth the risk dealing with. So whilst they might initially seem like lucrative targets, spellbook are hardly worth the effort to steal.
Second issue is how replacing a lost book will eat weeks if not months of in-game time. So either everyone else sits around (IC) doing nothing for quite a while or the wizard is left behind. Also applies for making back-up books, unless cheesing Illusory Script.

Finally, an ON/OFF switch is a terrible 'balancing factor': either walk over all encounters or do nothing? That's not balance. If you want to bring the wizard in line with the rest of the party (and can'trely on Gentleman's agreements) nerf/ban the problem spells/feats/prcs/etc instead of temp-banning the wizard whenever [plot] needs to happen/other PCs want to shine.

Something of a pet peeve of mine :smalltongue:.

[Eldariel]

I'll just drop this here: Monsters have the same optimization options as the PCs. A Tier 1 optimized CR appropriate Dragon is going to be a challenge to a Tier 1 party. And Dragons have a rather high optimization ceiling. Same goes for most Outsiders, intelligent Aberrations, intelligent Undead & Humanoids/Monstrous Humanoids/Giants (with class levels obviously). See Against the Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133571) as an example of what manners of options the Dragon has at its disposal.

While the party was far from optimal and played far from efficiently (they didn't have nearly 20 levels worth of experience in cooperation, after all), I think it serves as a fine showcase that a Dragon can put up a very fair fight, especially on the indirect level (few level 20 fights are actually direct, after all; just the nature of the game on those levels, with magic enabling so efficient indirect approach).


Optimization does not change the PC/Adversary paradigm, just raises the level of optimization the DM should use with the monsters. And of course, spatial challenges better be more of temporal or planar in kind than just simple chasms or such.

[Coidzor]

That getting hit with the puck is a known risk you take if you want to play hockey. The point is that it isn't desirable or intended but that doesn't mean it can't happen, and if you tried to prevent it completely you would probably ruin the game.

Then he'd need something to back up that assertion, especially applying it to such a vague thing as "removing the parts of the game that the players of said game don't enjoy dealing with."

As, well, this basically comes out as just an argument against house rules in the form its been presented. :smallconfused:

[ryu]

Additionally many players do in fact prevent a puck from hitting their face with a mysterious device called a hockey mask or some cases a helmet and they still seem to have a good time.:smalltongue:

Just thought I'd point that out. Yes we can in fact make a game more fun by changing it. I for one found the combat in fallout 3 too simple and as such installed multiple mods to increase enemy numbers, make them smarter, give new enemy types, and even add new effects to existing enemies. The gun choices are boring. How about this mod that adds 250 new weapons. Chinese stealth suit is overpowered and glitched but I like the concept. There's a mod which removes the glitches and downgrades it a bit so I can use it without feeling like a cheater. House rules, mods, system changes, homebrew, and intelligent glitch fixing are good things for games tabletop, video, forum, or otherwise.

That was just to prevent the awkward analogy arguments.

[Glimbur]

I don't think someone should have to stay single classes, but I think there should be a reasonable progression and tie in between classes.

The problem is that many classes are quite similar in capabilities and fluff. For example, if you want to be a master swordsman, you might consider Fighter, Swashbuckler, Warblade, Swordsage, Scout (if you like being mobile), Barbarian (if you want some sort of Combat Focus or what have you), Paladin (if you want Divine flavor too)... and then there are Prestige Classes which can focus on a style or group(Bladesinger, Eye of Gruumsh) or be also vanilla (Exotic Weapon Master). Some of these options are better than others because they are either stronger at the core focus (hitting things with a sword) or they offer other abilities (Ranger adds Track, Paladin adds Detect Evil, Warblade/Swordsage get Diamond Mind and other tricks.

Another example: wizard. You could be a wizard, a wu jen, a war mage, a dread necromancer, a beguiler, a cloistered cleric(especially if you are devoted to an ideal like Magic), and there are approximately a bajillion arcane prestige classes. Acolyte of the Skin has some pretty exact fluff and mechanics, but Master Specialist or Archmage can fit the archetype of almost any wizard-like character.

Classes are bundles of abilities which often have fluff attached. The goal is to make a character with the desired capabilities. Why not choose the best bundles to express what you wand the character to be able to do? Of course, it is also important to talk with the DM and get an idea of how mechanically challenging the campaign will be in order to avoid rofl-stomping things.

[Bovine Colonel]

Which is exactly my point. You don't know what they did to get there, so you can't possibly use that as "in character" knowledge to make your advancement choices. Now if you are trying to say thats how they know to pick a caster, well you don't even know if its a full caster. And there would probably also be legends of martial characters doing great deeds.

All optimization assumes that the actual build choices are entirely out of character knowledge. You don't make a Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator because your character is a Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator. You make one because your character blends divine power and exotic martial maneuvers while actually being as generally effective as the guy who likes to blow things up with spells (and went straight Warmage)

[Philistine]

Yes, it sucks to get rendered useless by losing your spellbook (or wearing metal, or breaking your moral code, etc, etc)...but you knew it was a possibility when you rolled the class! If you aren't OK with that, why would you as a player choose to play the class in the first place?

Wearing metal armor is the player's choice, as is violating the Paladin Code (well, always excepting brickhead DMs who go out of their way to create situations where all choices lead to Falling). Spellbook disappearing to DM fiat? Not so much. Big difference, there.

[ImperatorK]

Wearing metal armor is the player's choice, as is violating the Paladin Code (well, always excepting brickhead DMs who go out of their way to create situations where all choices lead to Falling). Spellbook disappearing to DM fiat? Not so much. Big difference, there.
What fiat? If there's a situation where the spellbook is taken, it is taken. No DM fiat needed.

[ryu]

He means utterly contrived situations that make no sense that you can't prevent in any way. You know the dm violently gimping you no matter what because they can?

[ImperatorK]

Still, there's no DM fiat needed. Just because there are jerks who do that doesn't mean that a spellbook can be taken only by DM fiat.

[ryu]

Shrink item, bag of holding is a minimal defense. You want to get serious put contingency spell traps on the bag. Specifically with the condition: Bag is opened by someone else. You want to get really serious you hide it in a pocket dimension. That's how I defend such important items at least.

[huttj509]

If the wizard character leaves his spellbook unprotected, and someone takes it while robbing the camp, it happens, that's why you protect it. Especially if the thief also takes those nice expensive weapons the fighter left sitting around. It's like someone playing a fairly pick up game of hockey and catching a puck in the face accidentally when not wearing a mask.

If a wizard character leaves his spellbook unprotected (or mildly protected), and because of that the DM decides to have a thief come in specifically to take the book, or target it with a fireball, etc, that's not really cool. That's like seeing someone's not wearing a mask or not wearing a proper mask (or not wearing it properly), and specifically aiming a puck for the face...not cool in a general relaxed game.

Spellbook well protected, but DM decides to nuke it anyway to take the wizard down a peg? Circumvents all protections just because he says so? That's like tackling the player, ripping his mash off, and slamming your stick into his face.

In a relaxed game, if you see someone unprotected or poorly protected, do you warn them that the puck's gonna be flying around, and they might want to be aware of that?

[ryu]

No one would warn me. As far as non party members know I'm just a really paranoid sorcerer. If I can help it that's what the party thinks too.

[MrRigger]

Of course, then there's the other side of that coin, play as a sorcerer who buys a thick spellbook, studies it every morning, plays the Shrink Item game, and when the BBEG comes along, captures the party, and taunts you with the spellbook, ridiculing you for the weak point so easily exploited, hit him with a Hail of Stone to the face.

MrRigger

[Snails]

The point is if you make the choice to purposely make a inept character, don't get angry because someone else didn't. If someone's new to the game then "shockingly" they'll probably make poor decisions based on their inexperience concerning character building.

If you don't like how other people play, keep it to yourself or don't play with them. Especially when someone else playing better has no direct negative impact on you or anyone else, aside from maybe hurting your feelings, in which case that doesn't matter either.

I am not sure why you are injecting your own feelings into this discussion, or projecting feelings I have not mentioned onto others. Weird. Are you usually so defensive?

The main complaints I hear about problems in variations of optimization come from the DMs themselves. They perceive that too large a difference between PCs will either (1) cause the encounters to be too easy as the stronger PCs stomp on all, (2) or risk the adventure grinding to a halt as the weaker PCs are killed too easily.

Yes, it is often possible to skate in between. It would be easier on the DM if the optimization variations were in a smaller range, if there were practical means to have some degree of control.

Now how exactly is your little lecture about not getting feelings hurt going to help my DMs? It isn't.


If you REALLY think that you have to own 13 books and spend 200 hours studying them to make potent characters in any kind of pnp rpg, I feel sorry for you, because you clearly have been living under a rock and haven't discovered things as simple as GOOGLE yet.

I do not have any trouble tuning my characters appropriately, either upwards or downwards, as the context suggests would be more appropriate, thank you very much. As you already advised me to mind my own business about how others play, your suggestion here is perfectly worthless.

[nyarlathotep]

I am not sure why you are injecting your own feelings into this discussion, or projecting feelings I have not mentioned onto others. Weird. Are you usually so defensive?

The main complaints I hear about problems in variations of optimization come from the DMs themselves. They perceive that too large a difference between PCs will either (1) cause the encounters to be too easy as the stronger PCs stomp on all, (2) or risk the adventure grinding to a halt as the weaker PCs are killed too easily.

Yes, it is often possible to skate in between. It would be easier on the DM if the optimization variations were in a smaller range, if there were practical means to have some degree of control.

Now how exactly is your little lecture about not getting feelings hurt going to help my DMs? It isn't.


If your logic is internally consistant then the problem is power gap not optimization to begin with. Which would just mean that everyone get together ahead of time and decide the general level of op. I have as the DM found most problems come from someone becoming fixated on some sort of mechanic like "monk is really cool" or "I want to use nothing but icicle spells". They are then underpowered because they failure to realize that those underpowered MECHANICS are not necessary to play their CHARACTER. In all of my time DMing (the majority of my tabletop experience) I have never had a problem that stemmed from someone being too optimized.

The problems have either stemmed from someone playing a flipped legged boy who was incapable of any remotely useful activity because "it makes for better roleplaying" or because someone is playing a blaster wizard. Blaster wizards are bad because they steal other combats thunder and are horrifically unoptimized and fail to capture the feel of most fantasy wizards.

Also as an added note anti-optimizers I have found are always horrible roleplayers. I personally think a lot of this anti-optimizing sentiment comes because they are compensating. People are bad at optimization and feel bad that they don't contribute mechanically. They then assume that by being unoptimized that somehow makes them a good roleplayer, ignoring that roleplaying is itself divorced from mechanics unless you are specifically crafting mechanics to fit the roleplaying, not the other way around.

As an aside can anyone tell me of an incompetent character they would want to emulate from any piece of fiction in a roleplaying game (excluding humor based games). Is there really some huge demand to play crippled warriors that can't so much as hit their foes? If so those people should find a different game rather than telling people that want to play Conan and Merlin in a game designed for them, that the type of fun they are having is wrong and somehow proof that they are bad people.

[Gnaeus]

As an aside can anyone tell me of an incompetent character they would want to emulate from any piece of fiction in a roleplaying game (excluding humor based games). Is there really some huge demand to play crippled warriors that can't so much as hit their foes? If so those people should find a different game rather than telling people that want to play Conan and Merlin in a game designed for them, that the type of fun they are having is wrong and somehow proof that they are bad people.

If by incompetent you mean unable to go toe to toe with what the party is fighting, then yes. I have played, at various times, a kinfolk, a butler, a wizard's familiar, and a wizard in a point based system who hated magic and wouldn't spend any points in it. All of those characters were mechanically far below the party's level. If I remember correctly, JaronK has mentioned that he enjoys playing commoners.

Now where I do agree with you is that when I played those characters, I didn't object that other players were stronger than I was. That was my choice. I didn't rely on the DM to give me spotlight time by throwing tailored monsters at me that I could beat (although good dms may do that anyway, it makes good story). I made my own spotlight time by having goals that were achievable by my character, and by roleplaying, and by thinking more creatively than the powerhouses on either side. But I never said that they were doing anything wrong by building strong characters, or that it hurt their RP or anything similar. (Actually, I did say that the other PCs were all psychotic maniacs who lost 50 points of IQ when they first turned into werewolves, but I only said it in character.:smallsmile:)

[Yukitsu]

If by incompetent you mean unable to go toe to toe with what the party is fighting, then yes. I have played, at various times, a kinfolk, a butler, a wizard's familiar, and a wizard in a point based system who hated magic and wouldn't spend any points in it. All of those characters were mechanically far below the party's level. If I remember correctly, JaronK has mentioned that he enjoys playing commoners.

I should just mention, JaronK's commoner build can one shot Balors.

[Erloas]

I don't think anyone is suggesting making totally gimped characters, at least that was never my intention in starting this thread. I'm just saying that I find "average" strength heroes, they are still heroes though, more interesting then super powered characters. When you have no real chance of loosing thats not very interesting to me. And I don't want a situation where you live or die based on one or two rolls, which seems to come from situations where in order to challenge players the opponents get much stronger too, so if you don't end up killing it in 1-2 rounds its going to be killing you. Because HPs and defense don't scale as fast as offensive power does, its the same problem that people bemoan about the fighter, they scale linearly while magic scales exponentially, and non-binary survival is the same way.


As for diversity, lets take 2 classes and levels of optimization and compare what can "play" with them, both in terms of teammates that won't be overshadowed and opponents that will be a challenge.
Case 1 is the Batman Wizard.
Case 2 is a moderately optimized Ranger.
The wizard could be joined by a druid, a cleric, a sorcerer and a few other builds, so long as they were highly optimized.
The ranger could be joined by just about anything, granted if they were joined by a druid, cleric, wizard, or sorcerer those classes would have to be played below their maximum potential power, not taking the strongest wildshapes and animal companions, focusing more on healing, a little constraint from the casters. But they could also be joined by a fighter if it was optimized quite a bit, or a rogue, paladin, barbarian also at moderate levels of optimization, and a number of other non-core classes (don't need to list them all, as there are too many options).
In terms of what they can fight, well the BW and friends aren't going to be challenged at all by martial enemies in most cases, their enemies are mostly going to have to also be casting based.
The Ranger can be challenged with martial enemies, hordes, and singles, they can be challenged by casters (depending on the exact makeup of the group and if the caster is allowed to know everything coming in, which seems to be the general assumption on these boards), and they can be challenged by the environment.

[Gnaeus]

I should just mention, JaronK's commoner build can one shot Balors.

Fair enough. I have only heard him mention it in passing, I never saw the build. But in a high rules-mastery high level environment, it is clearly many levels of magnitude below what he could be playing. Honestly, even saying that it can one shot Balors tells me very little about whether it is overpowered without knowing who else is in the party. The high level incantrix in the next chair, if the player has a similar level of system knowledge, could be yawning at such threats as mere Balors.



As for diversity, lets take 2 classes and levels of optimization and compare what can "play" with them, both in terms of teammates that won't be overshadowed and opponents that will be a challenge.
Case 1 is the Batman Wizard.
Case 2 is a moderately optimized Ranger.
The wizard could be joined by a druid, a cleric, a sorcerer and a few other builds, so long as they were highly optimized.
The ranger could be joined by just about anything, granted if they were joined by a druid, cleric, wizard, or sorcerer those classes would have to be played below their maximum potential power, not taking the strongest wildshapes and animal companions, focusing more on healing, a little constraint from the casters. But they could also be joined by a fighter if it was optimized quite a bit, or a rogue, paladin, barbarian also at moderate levels of optimization, and a number of other non-core classes (don't need to list them all, as there are too many options)..

Actually, a Batman wizard is very party friendly, using crowd control, buffs and debuffs to let his other party members shine. Please do not use terms like that incorrectly. A party of Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian would welcome a Batman.

And unless you are suggesting that Wizard, Cleric, Druid are bad and should never be played (which I don't think you are), high level optimization for lower tier characters serves an important role in letting other PCs play on the same battlefields. Playing a wizard or cleric with a demigod's intellect who is too stupid to use winning tactics hurts realism vastly more than does a muggle with half a dozen dipped classes in my opinion.

[SITB]

I don't think anyone is suggesting making totally gimped characters, at least that was never my intention in starting this thread. I'm just saying that I find "average" strength heroes, they are still heroes though, more interesting then super powered characters. When you have no real chance of loosing thats not very interesting to me. And I don't want a situation where you live or die based on one or two rolls, which seems to come from situations where in order to challenge players the opponents get much stronger too, so if you don't end up killing it in 1-2 rounds its going to be killing you. Because HPs and defense don't scale as fast as offensive power does, its the same problem that people bemoan about the fighter, they scale linearly while magic scales exponentially, and non-binary survival is the same way.


As for diversity, lets take 2 classes and levels of optimization and compare what can "play" with them, both in terms of teammates that won't be overshadowed and opponents that will be a challenge.
Case 1 is the Batman Wizard.
Case 2 is a moderately optimized Ranger.
The wizard could be joined by a druid, a cleric, a sorcerer and a few other builds, so long as they were highly optimized.
The ranger could be joined by just about anything, granted if they were joined by a druid, cleric, wizard, or sorcerer those classes would have to be played below their maximum potential power, not taking the strongest wildshapes and animal companions, focusing more on healing, a little constraint from the casters. But they could also be joined by a fighter if it was optimized quite a bit, or a rogue, paladin, barbarian also at moderate levels of optimization, and a number of other non-core classes (don't need to list them all, as there are too many options).
In terms of what they can fight, well the BW and friends aren't going to be challenged at all by martial enemies in most cases, their enemies are mostly going to have to also be casting based.
The Ranger can be challenged with martial enemies, hordes, and singles, they can be challenged by casters (depending on the exact makeup of the group and if the caster is allowed to know everything coming in, which seems to be the general assumption on these boards), and they can be challenged by the environment.

So, the two different power levels have different challenges that are appropriate? And do notice that you can't play the same challenges you could for the Ranger party that you could for the Wizard party, while the Ranger party challenges could be speed bumps and thus still useful (albeit in reduced fashion) while the Wizard challenges would slaughter the Ranger party.

But I still don't see how that's a problem of optimization compared to a problem with the system itself. Since 3.X supports such imbalance then it's a system flaw rather then a problem with some abstract concept. I mean, don't 4e handles the rocket tag flaw of 3.X far far better?

[Snails]

If your logic is internally consistant then the problem is power gap not optimization to begin with. Which would just mean that everyone get together ahead of time and decide the general level of op. I have as the DM found most problems come from someone becoming fixated on some sort of mechanic like "monk is really cool" or "I want to use nothing but icicle spells". They are then underpowered because they failure to realize that those underpowered MECHANICS are not necessary to play their CHARACTER. In all of my time DMing (the majority of my tabletop experience) I have never had a problem that stemmed from someone being too optimized.

I would largely agree.

But I would note that it is perfectly logical think "hey, this monk class looks cool", or "I want a knight in shining armor, so I will take a Paladin or Fighter or some mix of those". Even though the classes appear to be exactly on the nose with character concept, it takes some measure of effort to see how the obvious avenues of pursuing the concept are likely to fail.

That there are such egregious sucker's plays front and center would be a significant flaw in the system itself.


As an aside can anyone tell me of an incompetent character they would want to emulate from any piece of fiction in a roleplaying game (excluding humor based games). Is there really some huge demand to play crippled warriors that can't so much as hit their foes? If so those people should find a different game rather than telling people that want to play Conan and Merlin in a game designed for them, that the type of fun they are having is wrong and somehow proof that they are bad people.

Well, obviously flawed characters are somewhat common, but even those are highly competent at something that is very useful.

Even 3PO is useful at times. But he is really R2-D2's cohort, so he has an excuse for being often useless.

[Erloas]

But I still don't see how that's a problem of optimization compared to a problem with the system itself. Since 3.X supports such imbalance then it's a system flaw rather then a problem with some abstract concept. I mean, don't 4e handles the rocket tag flaw of 3.X far far better?
Well yes, they do have different appropriate encounter power levels. But the diversity of those encounters is a lot different too. Its easier to scale a challenge down to a party then it is to scale it up. Especially when, no matter what level of optimization you take, the high powered group will simple not be challenged by many things.
My complaint is that as optimization increases the diversity of options to challenge them decreases.

And it is sort of a flaw with the system, but its a flaw that has been in every system, in every type of game, not just RPGs, that I have played where optimization can be taken. It is the high levels of optimization, the search for those flaws in a system that breaks the system and makes it less interesting and less fun. It is why any system with freedom is inevitably broken by the players. It is why, when a company develops a new game that they "dumb it down" and take out options, they take out variables and choices because if they don't then "optimizers" are going to come in and break the system. Its *why we can't have nice things*

And to a large extent it is power gaming rather then optimization, but you can't have power gaming without optimization. Given not all optimizers are power gamers, but all power gamers are optimizers. And of course *no one calls themselves a power gamer* even if they are, very few people are willing to admit they are a power gamer and that Winning At All Costs is their goal. Everyone knows that line the line between optimizing and power gaming is there but they always draw it just on the other side of wherever they are.

And when you are re-writing the fluff of classes to make it fit your concept, then it doesn't actually fit your concept at all. When handwaving requirements, and ignoring weaknesses of classes and saying "I should be able to do whatever I want and my god shouldn't get mad at me and take away the power he has given me" (to get into the alignment *issues*) then you've got a long ways past "building a concept." You are simply ignoring things you don't like so you can be more powerful, so you don't have to worry about what you do.

[SITB]

Well yes, they do have different appropriate encounter power levels. But the diversity of those encounters is a lot different too. Its easier to scale a challenge down to a party then it is to scale it up. Especially when, no matter what level of optimization you take, the high powered group will simple not be challenged by many things.
My complaint is that as optimization increases the diversity of options to challenge them decreases.

Can a party of Tier 4 characters can take down a horde of Balors pre-epic? It's a matter of scope and imagination. Of course in the end you still fall into the old rocket launcher problem, but that's a problem with 3.X.


And it is sort of a flaw with the system, but its a flaw that has been in every system, in every type of game, not just RPGs, that I have played where optimization can be taken. It is the high levels of optimization, the search for those flaws in a system that breaks the system and makes it less interesting and less fun. It is why any system with freedom is inevitably broken by the players. It is why, when a company develops a new game that they "dumb it down" and take out options, they take out variables and choices because if they don't then "optimizers" are going to come in and break the system. Its *why we can't have nice things*

So, you complain that the hypothetical new game edition game is poorer then previous edition because it doesn't have the game-breaking options that supposedly nobody would use in the first place? That's quite a bit of cognitive dissonance from someone who said he doesn't like powergaming,

if the option is broken don't put it in the game, which was done in the hypothetical game. It's still a systemic flaw of the old edition rather then the flaw of some abstract ideal.


And when you are re-writing the fluff of classes to make it fit your concept, then it doesn't actually fit your concept at all. When handwaving requirements, and ignoring weaknesses of classes and saying "I should be able to do whatever I want and my god shouldn't get mad at me and take away the power he has given me" (to get into the alignment *issues*) then you've got a long ways past "building a concept." You are simply ignoring things you don't like so you can be more powerful, so you don't have to worry about what you do.

Do you have a point with this strawman? Where do you see people handwaving weakness of classes?

If you talk about Wizard and the spellbook situation: Having the Wizard lose his spellbook turns him into a commoner, it's the same situation if you had a session where you said to the player who plays the Fighter, "Sorry Bob, but in this plane/dungeon/whatever weapons don't work. So I guess you can try contribute with your 2 skill points per level or something." It's generally not fun being unable to contribute to the group for a whole session. It's a problem with the design of the Wizard where he can easily solve encounters using spells or do nothing, having a binary switch to effectiveness isn't good design in RPGs.

[ryu]

Again if the class with the proper fluff could actually do what it was fluffed to do we wouldn't have this problem. You want to be a strict lawful zombie slaying holy warrior? Don't pick the paladin. He dies easily to stuff four cr below at decent levels. You want to be the best swordsman ever? Don't pick fighter. He's overshadowed by almost everything including other swordsman classes at level eight.

In short it's not the players fault if classes can't actually do what the game designers promised with fluff.

Edit: Okay guys sorry for the double post and deletion. I was having a glitch where it wouldn't show the next page. I tried a trick that worked on a similar glitch from a different forum but it didn't work. Sorry to anyone who considered it spammy.

[Flickerdart]

Its easier to scale a challenge down to a party then it is to scale it up.
Haha, nope.

Want to scale something up? There's a handy dandy "advance by hit dice" option in the Monster Manual, or you could give it some templates, class levels, the Elite Array, some buddies, favourable terrain or weather conditions, have them ambush the PCs at a critical time, replace their god-awful feats with better ones, etc. If you want to scale something down? You...flip through the MM and hope to your deity of choice that there's a "Lesser" version of the thing, or are forced to homebrew up your own. If WotC decided to make one of their god-awful template classes for your monster of choice, you could use that too, but there are no other options for scaling down an encounter mechanically.

[ImperatorK]

Haha, nope.

Want to scale something up? There's a handy dandy "advance by hit dice" option in the Monster Manual, or you could give it some templates, class levels, the Elite Array, some buddies, favourable terrain or weather conditions, have them ambush the PCs at a critical time, replace their god-awful feats with better ones, etc. If you want to scale something down? You...flip through the MM and hope to your deity of choice that there's a "Lesser" version of the thing, or are forced to homebrew up your own. If WotC decided to make one of their god-awful template classes for your monster of choice, you could use that too, but there are no other options for scaling down an encounter mechanically.
Using a different but similar monster isn't an option?

[Flickerdart]

That falls under the Lesser version. There is not always going to be a different monster.

[ImperatorK]

Your players are weaker then kobolds? :smallconfused:

[ryu]

Kobolds aren't similar to everything. that's a different weaker encounter not a scaled down encounter.

[ImperatorK]

Well, if you're so bent on a specific monster and can't change it to another then that's your problem, not the games.

[Erloas]

Haha, nope.

Want to scale something up? There's a handy dandy "advance by hit dice" option in the Monster Manual, or you could give it some templates, class levels, the Elite Array, some buddies, favourable terrain or weather conditions, have them ambush the PCs at a critical time, replace their god-awful feats with better ones, etc. If you want to scale something down? You...flip through the MM and hope to your deity of choice that there's a "Lesser" version of the thing, or are forced to homebrew up your own. If WotC decided to make one of their god-awful template classes for your monster of choice, you could use that too, but there are no other options for scaling down an encounter mechanically.

Upping the hit dice isn't going to make a martial enemy any more able to challenge a caster he can't even reach then a lower level one. Upping his stats isn't going to change that either.

You can up raise or lower the challenge of the puzzle to get through the locked room, but that doesn't stop someone from being able to teleport past it.

Even ambushing is difficult with a class that can prepare for everything and has contingencies spells set up for when they get surprised.

Scaling down an encounter is easy though, you don't even have to look at a rewriting a stat block, adding a template or class levels, you simply play them less effectively. The caster wasn't expecting a fight that day so only prepared a hand full of offensive spells. The monster doesn't charge the person with an AC he can't miss against. The monsters don't cut the bridge across the canyon because they will need it later and can't easily fix it. Those are all changes you can make at the table without even thinking about a source book.
How do you challenge a flying wizard with a minotaur though?

[ImperatorK]

Make it a half-dragon minotaur Wizard.

[ryu]

Or if you don't want a mirror match have the monster specialize in a different kind of magic. If the wizard prefers targeting saves for instant death up the saves so he has reason to actually use damage spells. This is actually a very simple problem unless your player is using pun pun or something almost as ridiculous in which case why on earth did you even allow that?

[Erloas]

Make it a half-dragon minotaur Wizard.
At which point you are no longer challenging them with a minotaur, you are challenging them with a half-dragon wizard, the minotaur makes almost no difference in that case. It wouldn't matter at that point if if it was a half-dragon minotaur or a half-dragon enlightened weasel.


Or if you don't want a mirror match have the monster specialize in a different kind of magic. If the wizard prefers targeting saves for instant death up the saves so he has reason to actually use damage spells. How does that work if the monster doesn't have magic?

[ryu]

You're dm therefore it has magic or if you don't want to go that route use monsters that do and when that route gets boring and samey make some up. You're the dm. You don't have to ask permission to make new scenarios. In other words make up some new stuff and force the local magic user out of complacency.

[SITB]

Upping the hit dice isn't going to make a martial enemy any more able to challenge a caster he can't even reach then a lower level one. Upping his stats isn't going to change that either.

You can up raise or lower the challenge of the puzzle to get through the locked room, but that doesn't stop someone from being able to teleport past it.

Even ambushing is difficult with a class that can prepare for everything and has contingencies spells set up for when they get surprised.

Scaling down an encounter is easy though, you don't even have to look at a rewriting a stat block, adding a template or class levels, you simply play them less effectively. The caster wasn't expecting a fight that day so only prepared a hand full of offensive spells. The monster doesn't charge the person with an AC he can't miss against. The monsters don't cut the bridge across the canyon because they will need it later and can't easily fix it. Those are all changes you can make at the table without even thinking about a source book.
How do you challenge a flying wizard with a minotaur though?

But that's a problem with the 3.X system not optimization.

Nothing the Fighter would do to optimize would ever compare to the sheer vertality of the caster classes. If you don't want that problem either nerf spells or switch a system. It's not a problem with optimization, it's a problem with how D&D handles magic.

[Erloas]

You're dm therefore it has magic or if you don't want to go that route use monsters that do and when that route gets boring and samey make some up.
Thats my point though. The only thing you can use to challenge them is other magic users. You've cut your options down drastically. It either has to have class levels in a magical class or it has to just cast spells as if it was anyway.

[Flickerdart]

Upping the hit dice isn't going to make a martial enemy any more able to challenge a caster he can't even reach then a lower level one. Upping his stats isn't going to change that either.

You can up raise or lower the challenge of the puzzle to get through the locked room, but that doesn't stop someone from being able to teleport past it.

Even ambushing is difficult with a class that can prepare for everything and has contingencies spells set up for when they get surprised.

Scaling down an encounter is easy though, you don't even have to look at a rewriting a stat block, adding a template or class levels, you simply play them less effectively. The caster wasn't expecting a fight that day so only prepared a hand full of offensive spells. The monster doesn't charge the person with an AC he can't miss against. The monsters don't cut the bridge across the canyon because they will need it later and can't easily fix it. Those are all changes you can make at the table without even thinking about a source book.
How do you challenge a flying wizard with a minotaur though?
Higher HD = higher saves, and then there are templates to give SR, energy resistance, flght, teleportation and magic immunity.

Playing the monsters like idiots isn't a mechanical solution, it's the easy mode I was talking about earlier. If you're willing to run your monsters as a joke, then yes, they will not be as effective, but it's going to be painfully obvious that you're pulling punches, and a game where the monsters let the PCs win is painfully absurd.

Playing a spellcasting class is not optimization in itself. If you are unable to challenge that class with your monsters, then the solution is to try different monsters, not insist that the player not play the role they've chosen.

[Bovine Colonel]

I'm beginning to think that the discussion has shifted from "optimization" to "casters".

[ImperatorK]

At which point you are no longer challenging them with a minotaur, you are challenging them with a half-dragon wizard, the minotaur makes almost no difference in that case. It wouldn't matter at that point if if it was a half-dragon minotaur or a half-dragon enlightened weasel.
Half-dragon minotaur will have wings. Half-dragon enlightened weasel won't.


How does that work if the monster doesn't have magic?
You give them magic?


Higher HD = higher saves, and then there are templates to give SR, energy resistance, flght, teleportation and magic immunity.

Playing the monsters like idiots isn't a mechanical solution, it's the easy mode I was talking about earlier. If you're willing to run your monsters as a joke, then yes, they will not be as effective, but it's going to be painfully obvious that you're pulling punches, and a game where the monsters let the PCs win is painfully absurd.

Playing a spellcasting class is not optimization in itself. If you are unable to challenge that class with your monsters, then the solution is to try different monsters, not insist that the player not play the role they've chosen.
I'd rather play a monster consistently, as a living being that can make mistakes and can be too cocky, then play it like a machine that exists only for the sole purpose of fighting the players and always makes the right, most effective choices/actions. :smallannoyed:

[Flickerdart]

Consistently, yes, that's fine. But there are plenty of incredibly intelligent monsters, and even the dumb ones will realize that charging at the guy clad in steel and wielding a huge sword is stupid, and charging at the shrimpy guy in leather is going to be easier and more enjoyable.

[ryu]

Do you have any idea of the sheer volume of spell casting creatures? It's simply massive especially if you're willing to use non core stuff. Besides casters tend to be a more diverse thing than muggles anyway. Muggles have to find new ways of hitting things with weapons until they fall over. Wizards have quadratic options of different paths to take. The issue clearly isn't one of variety here.

[Flickerdart]

And then you can have gish monsters. Why should the Minotaur use his spells to fight, when he can drop a suite of buffs on himself with his War Weaver levels, and then beat you senseless with his incredible power - while flying around and counterspelling and what have you?

[Gnaeus]

How do you challenge a flying wizard with a minotaur though?


At which point you are no longer challenging them with a minotaur, you are challenging them with a half-dragon wizard, the minotaur makes almost no difference in that case. It wouldn't matter at that point if if it was a half-dragon minotaur or a half-dragon enlightened weasel.


Fine, just make it a half dragon minotaur then.

Or a minotaur with a potion of fly.

Or a minotaur with hulking hurler levels.

Or a minotaur in a room with 15 foot clearance on the roof.

Windstorm.

Give the minotaur a level 1 ally with UMD or 1 level in a casting class and a couple of useful wands.

If you are in a cavern, there could be traps or other enemies in the air that do not bother with opponents on the ground.

Most of the time, when people argue about casters breaking campaigns, it is because they haven't bothered looking at the casters spells and responding to what they can do. Sure, junk like selling Mounts or Walls of Iron, Chain Gating and the like are abusive and should be quickly and firmly discouraged. But Divinations, Fly and Teleport are not a problem for a prepared DM.

[SowZ]

Half-dragon minotaur will have wings. Half-dragon enlightened weasel won't.


You give them magic?


I'd rather play a monster consistently, as a living being that can make mistakes and can be too cocky, then play it like a machine that exists only for the sole purpose of fighting the players and always makes the right, most effective choices/actions. :smallannoyed:

But if they have primarily warrior or fighter classes, fighting is their job and as such they should be good. They are fighting for their lives and have made plans. If the players are attacking a dungeon or thier forest/home, they have talked tactics and should have more intricate strategies then PCs. Occasional mistakes are represented by bad rolls. Bad tactics just represents stupidity on the creatures part.

[WarKitty]

This is what optimization looks like, for me.

I had an idea of a character that was a street criminal background turned holy warrior. OOC, I also wanted to have a bit of a jack-of-all-trades with healing, since I was playing with newbies. Now, following the fluff, this would be a rogue/paladin.

I tried to make it work. It just didn't work very well. One, I was dex-based without having the feats available to make a dex-based character work. Two, sneak attack was just turning out to be a pain unless I designed the character specifically around it, which I didn't want to do. So that combination was not leaving me with a particularly useful character - my main feature from the rogue side was impractical, and I wasn't high enough to get decent features from the paladin side.

At this point, I looked at what I wanted to keep of the character. Because of her background, I wanted to keep the skill points and the dex-based nature. Because of the holy warrior idea, I wanted to keep some healing abilities and some decent combat abilities. The feats could be obtained by taking levels in fighter - which took care of the combat abilities as well, but left me without the paladin levels. For skill points and healing, I turned to bard, taking a non-musical performance and healing spells.

That is what optimization is supposed to look like. Not making the most powerful character ever, but making a character good at what they do. In this case, I have a character that is ok but not great at damage, good at combat maneuvers, good at skills, and decent at healing and one or two combat buff spells. Hardly a character without weaknesses.

[Totally Guy]

I'm beginning to think that the discussion has shifted from "optimization" to "casters".

I'm beginning to think that the discussion is now about D&D 3.5. :smallwink:

[Erloas]

That is what optimization is supposed to look like. Not making the most powerful character ever, but making a character good at what they do. In this case, I have a character that is ok but not great at damage, good at combat maneuvers, good at skills, and decent at healing and one or two combat buff spells. Hardly a character without weaknesses.
And that level of optimization is something I don't have a problem with.

There is also a reason I didn't put this in the 3.5 section, it was about games in general and how trying to squeeze everything you can out of a system limits options.

And I don't actually have a problem with flight or teleport either, I just felt that they were very good examples of what I was getting at. Fly is powerful, but not overpowered, the issue with it is that once someone has it everyone has to have it or specialize to deal with it.
But at the same time, when was the last time someone didn't pick up fly as soon as they could? When was the last time a caster had vertigo, so chose not to fly? It might happen, but I really doubt it was an optimized character.
The same way that in Battletech when someone takes highly optimized builds you go from dozens of different options to maybe half a dozen. Its why I prefer using "book" 'Mechs in that system.
Or in Warhammer where if someone loads up on magic everyone has to.

[WarKitty]

And I don't actually have a problem with flight or teleport either, I just felt that they were very good examples of what I was getting at. Fly is powerful, but not overpowered, the issue with it is that once someone has it everyone has to have it or specialize to deal with it.
But at the same time, when was the last time someone didn't pick up fly as soon as they could? When was the last time a caster had vertigo, so chose not to fly? It might happen, but I really doubt it was an optimized character.
The same way that in Battletech when someone takes highly optimized builds you go from dozens of different options to maybe half a dozen. Its why I prefer using "book" 'Mechs in that system.

To be fair, in our groups a caster that wouldn't fly because he had vertigo would lead to "let's drop this idiot off at the next town and find someone useful." I've honestly had more of a problem with that in my experience than with over-optimization. It's the one guy that thinks having weaknesses makes for better roleplaying, so he makes a really flawed character that ends up annoying everyone and not actually contributing to the party.

[Gnaeus]

But at the same time, when was the last time someone didn't pick up fly as soon as they could? When was the last time a caster had vertigo, so chose not to fly? It might happen, but I really doubt it was an optimized character.
The same way that in Battletech when someone takes highly optimized builds you go from dozens of different options to maybe half a dozen. Its why I prefer using "book" 'Mechs in that system.
Or in Warhammer where if someone loads up on magic everyone has to.

Lets look at OWoD. I have had a TON of OWOD characters who couldn't fly. A few could yes, fly is always nice, but not necessary.

What is the difference? In 3.5, above a certain CR, most monsters fly. At that point, with common, iconic enemies like Dragons and Demons, stuff every peasant knows about, you have 3 choices...

Fly
Have a reliable method of grounding ranged fliers
Lose

#3 is not a good option. #1 is easier than #2....sooooo.

That is less of a character preference, or even an optimization preference (although system savvy players know this and plan for it), it is a system preference.

For that matter, if you assume that wizard's aren't really, really stupid, In a world where swords are common and big thuddy monsters are common, why wouldn't you learn to fly as soon as you can? OK, vertigo...yes, but D&D is a heroic fantasy game and building characters who can't do their jobs is not the system assumption. Frack! Flying is cool! If I could learn how to fly, I totally would, and I don't even have to worry about orc soldiers attacking me with greataxes! Intelligent characters doing intelligent things does not break realism. Intelligent characters NOT doing intelligent things because they want to be fair to their enemies usually does!

[ryu]

Who didn't take fly? The wizard who felt contrary and brought enemies down rather than fly after them. The only reason to have fly is for sustained aerial combat once you have teleport. If you can bring the enemy to you why fly? More importantly why waste a spell a day on it when magic fly items aren't all that hard to get?

[Totally Guy]

A wizard in Burning Wheel that had vertigo would be awesome.

Every time his fear of heights got him into trouble he'd get fate points. Heck, if the central concept of the character was about his vertigo he'd be eligible to earn Persona points too.

He can spent those to help him accomplish tasks that'd be impossible otherwise.

And attempting the impossible (whether you spend these points that make it possible or not) earns you experience.


I'm pretty sure a wizard with vertigo would be awesome in FATE too. But I've never actually played that one.


Edit: I guess choosing a weakness that'll keep coming up is pretty much considered optimising in Burning Wheel. Whoa! :smallwink:

[Snails]

Again if the class with the proper fluff could actually do what it was fluffed to do we wouldn't have this problem. You want to be a strict lawful zombie slaying holy warrior? Don't pick the paladin. He dies easily to stuff four cr below at decent levels. You want to be the best swordsman ever? Don't pick fighter. He's overshadowed by almost everything including other swordsman classes at level eight.

In short it's not the players fault if classes can't actually do what the game designers promised with fluff.

In my mind this is probably the key issue.

Suppose I am a seasoned RPGer and wargamer who carefully reads the 3.5 PHB from front to back, and then flips through the Complete Warrior for a couple hours...

I should be ready to make a reasonable attempt at The Best Swordsman in the World. It is a 10th level campaign, so pick up 10 Fighter levels, grab a bunch of PHB feats and a couple from Complete Warrior as well.

I would hardly expect to fully succeed at the goal. But my first attempt should not embarrass himself when standing next to even a super-maximized PC. A Fighter is darn good at fighting, right?

Now let me look at the SuperDuper PC who really does completely outshine my Fighter. What do I see? Probably two or three base classes with dips into two PrCs, already at 10th level. And he is planning to pick up a third PrC at 12th.

Double-you. Tee. Eff.

I understand that there will always be some rewards for "system mastery". But the potential rewards are out of the park and a few blocks down the road. I would not say this is necessarily a problem, at any particular table. I have seen some mild cases though.

Somehow, the idea I should just look something up on the internet is not a satisfying answer. "Yeah, he is a cow worshiper who is good at shapechanging, I guess. And, no, I do not own the books on that PrC or those other feats either, so I cannot explain it."

Maybe an extreme example. But giving a smart beginner who is attempting a very, very simple concept a pile of heterogeneous STUFF he pulls off the internet is a pretty terrible solution.

The solution is to have a Fighter who is excellent at fighting without much effort, etc.

[Claudius Maximus]

One word: play a warblade.

The problem with that is that it isn't core, of course, so your point about straightforward, presented options being disappointing definitely still stands.

But is there a problem with playing a superior class when the inferior ones are disappointing you? You want to be the best swordsman, so to reflect that you have to optimize sword-based combat to some extent (taking warblade over fighter is a simple but decent step towards this). I don't see a problem with optimizing like that, unless you take it to insane extremes, which I don't think anyone here is suggesting.

[Eldariel]

The solution is to have a Fighter who is excellent at fighting without much effort, etc.

But that's something WoTC already botched up. We can't change what WoTC did. We just make do with what we're given (and make a bunch of our own stuff while at it).

[Erloas]

To be fair, in our groups a caster that wouldn't fly because he had vertigo would lead to "let's drop this idiot off at the next town and find someone useful." I've honestly had more of a problem with that in my experience than with over-optimization. It's the one guy that thinks having weaknesses makes for better roleplaying, so he makes a really flawed character that ends up annoying everyone and not actually contributing to the party.

Isn't that effectively saying "my group will roleplay so long as it doesn't get in the way of being effective"?
Consider that vertigo isn't a choice, its not really something that can be overcome, its not an lack of intelligence or willpower sort of thing.
I can't think of a specific example at this point, but I do remember some stories where the hero has a basic phobia that interferes with their ability to do what would otherwise be a fairly normal task.

Other then the obvious example that Durkon doesn't like to fly. And that tends to be a fairly common dwarf trait in many settings.

[Flickerdart]

No, they're roleplaying a sensible adventuring party, a cadre of men who put their life on the line exactly four times a day as part of their job. They are not going to put up with someone who can't pull their own weight, because they can't babysit the dead weight and survive at the same time.

[ryu]

In other words if your character needs babysitting you may as well be a civilian. You want joe everyman covered in flaws fighting to survive? Don't play a system that assumes you'll eventually be able to kill dragons.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In other words if your character needs babysitting you may as well be a civilian. You want joe everyman covered in flaws fighting to survive? Don't play a system that assumes you'll eventually be able to kill dragons.

Yeah, there's a reason adventuring has a high fatality rate, and PCs aren't meant to die.

[WarKitty]

Isn't that effectively saying "my group will roleplay so long as it doesn't get in the way of being effective"?
Consider that vertigo isn't a choice, its not really something that can be overcome, its not an lack of intelligence or willpower sort of thing.
I can't think of a specific example at this point, but I do remember some stories where the hero has a basic phobia that interferes with their ability to do what would otherwise be a fairly normal task.

Other then the obvious example that Durkon doesn't like to fly. And that tends to be a fairly common dwarf trait in many settings.

Depends on how bad it is. If we're up against a flying monster, I want to know that the guy at my back is going to be helping me kill it and not quivering in fear. If he can't do that, I'd dump him. Otherwise it's like putting me out in the RL military with a guy who has agoraphobia - of course no sane military would put him out there!

I'm not saying "don't have drawbacks." I am saying you can take it too far. And I have played with characters that had enough drawbacks that they were consuming more party resources than they were actually contributing to the party. Don't be that guy, it's not good roleplaying.

[Erloas]

So even though he is a capable practitioner of the arcane arts, and has proved his worth for years (being at least level 5), this one flaw that just now came up means he is worthless and needs to be babysat? I don't see OOTS dumping Durkon as worthless because he doesn't want to fly, though he did overcome it for one instance and made a bit deal about it the whole time, hes clearly never going to be flying in combat.

And up until the higher levels flying isn't a mandatory daily activity, and at this point you might not even know it will be without meta knowledge, seeing as how most of the things you fight now don't fly.

To me that sounds like nothing other then straight power gaming.

edit: and its not like he can't still fight people that fly, he does have ranged spells after all.

[WarKitty]

See, the first time you made it sound like he was absolutely refusing to fly. That's different. If he's afraid of flying and overcomes it, that can make a good story. If he just refuses to fly, not so much.

The other problem I've had with intentionally flawed characters is that they take up too much time in the game. Yes it is a roleplaying game, but it is a cooperative roleplaying game. I don't want to spend a lot of time regularly on your personal struggles, because you're not the only one here and I didn't come to be a side character in your story. Major flaws should not come up regularly enough that they detract from everyone else's time.

[ryu]

Also level five? Without some optimization even the fighter is probably doing better. Besides level five mages are even less special depending on setting.